when trying to open up the std namespace the compiler gives me an error. I simply use

using namespace std;

and the compiler tells me that std is an undefined identifier

DMC isn't (yet!) compliant.  Actually, it is ARM C++ compliant, so you'll have to use the old style C++:

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

must be modified to:

#include <iostream.h>


Laurentiu

"jm" <jm_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:adr05h$14o0$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> when trying to open up the std namespace the compiler gives me an error. I simply use
>
> using namespace std;
>
> and the compiler tells me that std is an undefined identifier
>
>

Does anyone know if/when digitalmars will become compliant to the C++ standard (INCITS/ISO/IEC 14882-1998) - at least in terms of supporting std namespaces and #include <iostream> rather than #include <iostream.h>?  Are there many other glaringly obvious noncompliant aspects of the compiler?

Thanks,

Matthew Burgess

"Laurentiu Pancescu" <user@domain.invalid> wrote in message news:adtpa8$17ti$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> DMC isn't (yet!) compliant.  Actually, it is ARM C++ compliant, so you'll have to use the old style C++:
>
> #include <iostream>
> using namespace std;
>
> must be modified to:
>
> #include <iostream.h>
>
>
> Laurentiu
>
> "jm" <jm_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:adr05h$14o0$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > when trying to open up the std namespace the compiler gives me an error.
I
> > simply use
> >
> > using namespace std;
> >
> > and the compiler tells me that std is an undefined identifier
> >
> >
>
>

These are the two main onces AFAIK.
The compiler is (was) basically compliant to an older standard.
These things, i.e. namespaces and templates is being worked on, however, there
is no release date I am aware of.
Jan



Matthew Burgess wrote:

> Does anyone know if/when digitalmars will become compliant to the C++ standard (INCITS/ISO/IEC 14882-1998) - at least in terms of supporting std namespaces and #include <iostream> rather than #include <iostream.h>?  Are there many other glaringly obvious noncompliant aspects of the compiler?
>