Related
username With the latest Delphi version (Berlin/10.1/24), is the [Ref] attribute really necessary? I'm asking this because the online documentation says: Constant parameters can be passed to functions by value or by reference, depending on the specific compile
username With the latest Delphi version (Berlin/10.1/24), is the [Ref] attribute really necessary? I'm asking this because the online documentation says: Constant parameters can be passed to functions by value or by reference, depending on the specific compile
username With the latest Delphi version (Berlin/10.1/24), is the [Ref] attribute really necessary? I'm asking this because the online documentation says: Constant parameters can be passed to functions by value or by reference, depending on the specific compile
username With the latest Delphi version (Berlin/10.1/24), is the [Ref] attribute really necessary? I'm asking this because the online documentation says: Constant parameters can be passed to functions by value or by reference, depending on the specific compile
innocent bystander Imagine the following simplified code: #include <iostream>
void foo(const int& x) { do_something_with(x); }
int main() { foo(42); return 0; }
(1) Besides optimization, what happens when 42 is passed to foo? Does the compiler stick 42 somew
innocent bystander Imagine the following simplified code: #include <iostream>
void foo(const int& x) { do_something_with(x); }
int main() { foo(42); return 0; }
(1) Besides optimization, what happens when 42 is passed to foo? Does the compiler stick 42 somew
innocent bystander Imagine the following simplified code: #include <iostream>
void foo(const int& x) { do_something_with(x); }
int main() { foo(42); return 0; }
(1) Besides optimization, what happens when 42 is passed to foo? Does the compiler stick 42 somew
innocent bystander Imagine the following simplified code: #include <iostream>
void foo(const int& x) { do_something_with(x); }
int main() { foo(42); return 0; }
(1) Besides optimization, what happens when 42 is passed to foo? Does the compiler stick 42 somew
innocent bystander Imagine the following simplified code: #include <iostream>
void foo(const int& x) { do_something_with(x); }
int main() { foo(42); return 0; }
(1) Besides optimization, what happens when 42 is passed to foo? Does the compiler stick 42 somew
use The following code compiles fine . #include <iostream>
struct rgb8{
uint8_t r() const {return 0;};
};
template<typename L, typename P>
L pixelToLevel(P p) {
return static_cast<L>(p);
}
template<>
uint8_t pixelToLevel<uint8_t, rgb8>(rgb8 p) { /
use The following code compiles fine . #include <iostream>
struct rgb8{
uint8_t r() const {return 0;};
};
template<typename L, typename P>
L pixelToLevel(P p) {
return static_cast<L>(p);
}
template<>
uint8_t pixelToLevel<uint8_t, rgb8>(rgb8 p) { /
use The following code compiles fine . #include <iostream>
struct rgb8{
uint8_t r() const {return 0;};
};
template<typename L, typename P>
L pixelToLevel(P p) {
return static_cast<L>(p);
}
template<>
uint8_t pixelToLevel<uint8_t, rgb8>(rgb8 p) { /
use The following code compiles fine . #include <iostream>
struct rgb8{
uint8_t r() const {return 0;};
};
template<typename L, typename P>
L pixelToLevel(P p) {
return static_cast<L>(p);
}
template<>
uint8_t pixelToLevel<uint8_t, rgb8>(rgb8 p) { /
virtual software company I realize that the common sense "can't move const objects" isn't entirely true. If you declare the move ctor as, you can X(const X&&);
The complete example is as follows: #include <iostream>
struct X
{
X() = default;
X(const
virtual software company I realize that the common sense "can't move const objects" isn't entirely true. If you declare the move ctor as, you can X(const X&&);
The complete example is as follows: #include <iostream>
struct X
{
X() = default;
X(const
virtual software company I realize that the common sense "can't move const objects" isn't entirely true. If you declare the move ctor as, you can X(const X&&);
The complete example is as follows: #include <iostream>
struct X
{
X() = default;
X(const
virtual software company I realize that the common sense "can't move const objects" isn't entirely true. If you declare the move ctor as, you can X(const X&&);
The complete example is as follows: #include <iostream>
struct X
{
X() = default;
X(const
virtual software company I realize that the common sense "can't move const objects" isn't entirely true. If you declare the move ctor as, you can X(const X&&);
The complete example is as follows: #include <iostream>
struct X
{
X() = default;
X(const
virtual software company I realize that the common sense "can't move const objects" isn't entirely true. If you declare the move ctor as, you can X(const X&&);
The complete example is as follows: #include <iostream>
struct X
{
X() = default;
X(const
Martin Why should calling std::ref be preferred over not calling it at all? template<class F, class...Ts> F for_each_arg(F f, Ts&&...a) {
return (void)initializer_list<int>{(ref(f)((Ts&&)a), 0)...}, f;
// why not return (void)initializer_list<int>{(f((Ts&&
Martin Why should calling std::ref be preferred over not calling it at all? template<class F, class...Ts> F for_each_arg(F f, Ts&&...a) {
return (void)initializer_list<int>{(ref(f)((Ts&&)a), 0)...}, f;
// why not return (void)initializer_list<int>{(f((Ts&&
Martin Why should calling std::ref be preferred over not calling it at all? template<class F, class...Ts> F for_each_arg(F f, Ts&&...a) {
return (void)initializer_list<int>{(ref(f)((Ts&&)a), 0)...}, f;
// why not return (void)initializer_list<int>{(f((Ts&&
Martin Why should calling std::ref be preferred over not calling it at all? template<class F, class...Ts> F for_each_arg(F f, Ts&&...a) {
return (void)initializer_list<int>{(ref(f)((Ts&&)a), 0)...}, f;
// why not return (void)initializer_list<int>{(f((Ts&&
squid I wonder if there is any use of explicitly using getter decorators for class properties: class A:
@property
def p(self):
return self._p
@p.setter
def p(self, val):
assert p < 1000
self._p = val
@p.getter
def
squid I wonder if there is any use of explicitly using getter decorators for class properties: class A:
@property
def p(self):
return self._p
@p.setter
def p(self, val):
assert p < 1000
self._p = val
@p.getter
def
squid I wonder if there is any use of explicitly using getter decorators for class properties: class A:
@property
def p(self):
return self._p
@p.setter
def p(self, val):
assert p < 1000
self._p = val
@p.getter
def
Naval Why would anyone do this: const object useless = null;
const IEnumerable meaningless = null;
Eric Lippert said that functionality is not implemented by default, and every possibility adds effort in testing, maintenance, etc. Why use the null value of a
Naval Why would anyone do this: const object useless = null;
const IEnumerable meaningless = null;
Eric Lippert said that functionality is not implemented by default, and every possibility adds effort in testing, maintenance, etc. Why use the null value of a
Birgersp As much as I love C++ programming, I really don't have one thing. In my opinion, the most common way to program functions is like this: some_function(a variable)
do something according to the data in the variable
example: bool match_name(const st