Case
statements are only labels. This means the compiler will interpret this as a jump directly to the label. In C++, the problem here is one of scope. Your curly brackets define the scope as everything inside the switch
statement. This means that you are left with a scope where a jump will be performed further into the code skipping the initialization.
The correct way to handle this is to define a scope specific to that case
statement and define your variable within it:
switch (val)
{
case VAL:
{
// This will work
int newVal = 42;
break;
}
case ANOTHER_VAL:
...
break;
}
Implicit garbage collection could have been added in, but it just didn't make the cut. Probably due to not just implementation complications, but also due to people not being able to come to a general consensus fast enough.
A quote from Bjarne Stroustrup himself:
I had hoped that a garbage collector
which could be optionally enabled
would be part of C++0x, but there were
enough technical problems that I have
to make do with just a detailed
specification of how such a collector
integrates with the rest of the
language, if provided. As is the case
with essentially all C++0x features,
an experimental implementation exists.
There is a good discussion of the topic here.
General overview:
C++ is very powerful and allows you to do almost anything. For this reason it doesn't automatically push many things onto you that might impact performance. Garbage collection can be easily implemented with smart pointers (objects that wrap pointers with a reference count, which auto delete themselves when the reference count reaches 0).
C++ was built with competitors in mind that did not have garbage collection. Efficiency was the main concern that C++ had to fend off criticism from in comparison to C and others.
There are 2 types of garbage collection...
Explicit garbage collection:
C++0x will have garbage collection via pointers created with shared_ptr
If you want it you can use it, if you don't want it you aren't forced into using it.
You can currently use boost:shared_ptr as well if you don't want to wait for C++0x.
Implicit garbage collection:
It does not have transparent garbage collection though. It will be a focus point for future C++ specs though.
Why Tr1 doesn't have implicit garbage collection?
There are a lot of things that tr1 of C++0x should have had, Bjarne Stroustrup in previous interviews stated that tr1 didn't have as much as he would have liked.
Best Answer
Because then a string of digits would be a valid identifier as well as a valid number.