问题描述
和
要明确：我的问题不是是否建议对于该问题，请使用N3337代替官方标准但只是编号是否不同。
To be clear: my question is not whether it is advisable to use N3337 in place of the official standard, for that question has already been well answered on Stackoverflow; but only whether the numbering differs.
作为参考，请（如果您点击链接，请专门参考日期为 Sun Mar 18，12 06:41 PM的项目）。另外，作为参考，@ Nemo提请注意相关的Stackoverflow问题，并在
For reference, here is the most nearly relevant non-Stackoverflow answer I find (if you follow the link, refer specifically to the item dated "Sun Mar 18, 12 06:41 PM"). Also for reference, @Nemo draws attention to a related Stackoverflow question with answers here.
推荐答案
N3290受保护，被委员会认为是最终草案。我尚未购买ISO / IEC标准并进行了比较，以确保它与N3290相同。我也没有听到有关该委员会是否相同的讨论。
N3290, which is protected, is considered by the committee to be the final draft. I have not purchased the ISO/IEC standard and compared them to ensure that it is identical to N3290. I have also not heard any discussion on the committee questioning that it is identical.
我比较了N3290和N3337的交叉引用。交叉引用包含section.tags和部分编号的完整列表。它们是相同的，除了两个小的更改：
I've compared the cross references of N3290 and N3337. The cross references contain a complete list of the section.tags and section numbers. They are identical except for two minor changes:
N3290具有：
unord.map.modifers 23.5.4.4
unord.multimap.modifers 23.5.5.3
N3337具有：
unord.map.modifiers 23.5.4.4
unord.multimap.modifiers 23.5.5.3
（修饰符->修饰符）
我不了解段落编号。但是是编辑器关于所做更改的报告自最终草案以来。
I do not know about paragraph numbers. But here is a report from the editor concerning the changes made since the final draft.
这篇关于C ++ 11标准和免费草案N3337之间的段号是否不同？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！