Related
Thomas B. Suppose you have a set of pointers (yes...): std::set<SomeType*> myTypeContainer;
Then suppose you want to search this collection from a const method of SomeType: bool SomeType::IsContainered() const
{
return myTypeContainer.find(this) != myType
Thomas B. Suppose you have a set of pointers (yes...): std::set<SomeType*> myTypeContainer;
Then suppose you want to search this collection from a const method of SomeType: bool SomeType::IsContainered() const
{
return myTypeContainer.find(this) != myType
Thomas B. Suppose you have a set of pointers (yes...): std::set<SomeType*> myTypeContainer;
Then suppose you want to search this collection from a const method of SomeType: bool SomeType::IsContainered() const
{
return myTypeContainer.find(this) != myType
Dean Why does the following work? #include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class PolyLine {
public:
PolyLine() = default;
PolyLine(PolyLine * ptr) {
std::cout << "Ctor called" << std::endl;
}
};
void function(const PolyLine& pt) {
}
int main() {
install Similar to the question difference between pointers and references when passing trait objects as parameters Suppose we have foo1 and matrix mat2by2: void foo1(MatrixXd& container){
//...container matrix is modified here
}
and Matrix33d mat2by2;
ma
sl Consider the following vector: std::vector<std::shared_ptr<X>> myVector;
and the following two functions that add a given element to a vector: void foo1(std::shared_ptr<X> x)
{
myVector.push_back(x);
}
void foo2(const std::shared_ptr<X>& x)
{
myVe
sl Consider the following vector: std::vector<std::shared_ptr<X>> myVector;
and the following two functions that add a given element to a vector: void foo1(std::shared_ptr<X> x)
{
myVector.push_back(x);
}
void foo2(const std::shared_ptr<X>& x)
{
myVe
sl Consider the following vector: std::vector<std::shared_ptr<X>> myVector;
and the following two functions that add a given element to a vector: void foo1(std::shared_ptr<X> x)
{
myVector.push_back(x);
}
void foo2(const std::shared_ptr<X>& x)
{
myVe
sl Consider the following vector: std::vector<std::shared_ptr<X>> myVector;
and the following two functions that add a given element to a vector: void foo1(std::shared_ptr<X> x)
{
myVector.push_back(x);
}
void foo2(const std::shared_ptr<X>& x)
{
myVe
sl Consider the following vector: std::vector<std::shared_ptr<X>> myVector;
and the following two functions that add a given element to a vector: void foo1(std::shared_ptr<X> x)
{
myVector.push_back(x);
}
void foo2(const std::shared_ptr<X>& x)
{
myVe
csguy Isn't passing pointers by const reference for optimization? predecessor. bool testHelper(const TreeNode*& p, const TreeNode*& q) {
return false;
}
TreeNode* test(TreeNode* root, TreeNode* p, TreeNode* q) {
recursiveHelper(p, q);
}
mistake: Line
catch_0x16 When using 3D/2D graphics libraries, I often find myself passing a pointer to the render window to each drawable class that draws itself onto the canvas. However, every time I do this, I worry that by passing a pointer to the render window, the obje
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
username Are int const *aand const int *amean "a is an integer pointer to a constant value" and "a is a pointer to a constant address" respectively, or vice versa? This was asked me in an interview. After reading a lot about the same thing, I'm still very conf
Izrin Recently, I stumbled across a comparison between Rust and C, they use the following code: bool f(int* a, const int* b) {
*a = 2;
int ret = *b;
*a = 3;
return ret != 0;
}
In Rust (same code, but with Rust syntax) it would generate the following a
Izrin Recently, I stumbled across a comparison between Rust and C, they use the following code: bool f(int* a, const int* b) {
*a = 2;
int ret = *b;
*a = 3;
return ret != 0;
}
In Rust (same code, but with Rust syntax) it would generate the following a
Izrin Recently, I stumbled across a comparison between Rust and C, they use the following code: bool f(int* a, const int* b) {
*a = 2;
int ret = *b;
*a = 3;
return ret != 0;
}
In Rust (same code, but with Rust syntax) it would generate the following a
Izrin Recently, I stumbled across a comparison between Rust and C, they use the following code: bool f(int* a, const int* b) {
*a = 2;
int ret = *b;
*a = 3;
return ret != 0;
}
In Rust (same code, but with Rust syntax) it would generate the following a
Izrin Recently, I stumbled across a comparison between Rust and C, they use the following code: bool f(int* a, const int* b) {
*a = 2;
int ret = *b;
*a = 3;
return ret != 0;
}
In Rust (same code, but with Rust syntax) it would generate the following a
Jon I'm playing with arrays and passing pointers by reference functions. Take the following code as an example: #include<iostream>
void test_fn(const int* const &i){
std::cout<<*i<<std::endl;
}
int main(){
int arr_1[5] {1, 3, 6, 4, 5};
int *int_p
Jon I'm playing with arrays and passing pointers by reference functions. Take the following code as an example: #include<iostream>
void test_fn(const int* const &i){
std::cout<<*i<<std::endl;
}
int main(){
int arr_1[5] {1, 3, 6, 4, 5};
int *int_p
Jon I'm playing with arrays and passing pointers by reference functions. Take the following code as an example: #include<iostream>
void test_fn(const int* const &i){
std::cout<<*i<<std::endl;
}
int main(){
int arr_1[5] {1, 3, 6, 4, 5};
int *int_p
Jon I'm playing with arrays and passing pointers by reference functions. Take the following code as an example: #include<iostream>
void test_fn(const int* const &i){
std::cout<<*i<<std::endl;
}
int main(){
int arr_1[5] {1, 3, 6, 4, 5};
int *int_p
IQ When I try to find the answer, I almost only find C++ posts, not C. For built-in types like int, char, is there a performance difference between pass-by-value and const pointer? Is it still good programming practice to use the const keyword when passing by
Taoist group I'm learning c++ and recently I read a book that recommends that you use references to const when possible (if the underlying object doesn't change). I have a question, you should pass a reference to a const pointer instead of a const pointer if p