Related
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
gap I have code like this: class Pair{
public:
Pair(Pair && other){};
Pair(Pair & other){};
};
class IROList{
public:
virtual const Pair get(const char *key) const = 0;
inline const Pair operator[](const char *key) const{
return this
gap I have code like this: class Pair{
public:
Pair(Pair && other){};
Pair(Pair & other){};
};
class IROList{
public:
virtual const Pair get(const char *key) const = 0;
inline const Pair operator[](const char *key) const{
return this
gap I have code like this: class Pair{
public:
Pair(Pair && other){};
Pair(Pair & other){};
};
class IROList{
public:
virtual const Pair get(const char *key) const = 0;
inline const Pair operator[](const char *key) const{
return this
Camino: In C++11, we can write the following code: struct Cat {
Cat(){}
};
const Cat cat;
std::move(cat); //this is valid in C++11
When i call it std::movemeans i want to move the object i.e i will change the object. Moving constobjects is unreasonable, s
Camino: In C++11, we can write the following code: struct Cat {
Cat(){}
};
const Cat cat;
std::move(cat); //this is valid in C++11
When i call it std::movemeans i want to move the object i.e i will change the object. Moving constobjects is unreasonable, s
Camino: In C++11, we can write the following code: struct Cat {
Cat(){}
};
const Cat cat;
std::move(cat); //this is valid in C++11
When i call it std::movemeans i want to move the object i.e i will change the object. Moving constobjects is unreasonable, s
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
Wuppertinger I have to do calculations in matlab where the matrix is very large. I've made sure to use matrix operations etc where possible. Now try fine-tuning. So let A, B, C and D be matrices: C=A*B;
D=cos(C);
It seems that the following approach would be
Wuppertinger I have to do calculations in matlab where the matrix is very large. I've made sure to use matrix operations etc where possible. Now try fine-tuning. So let A, B, C and D be matrices: C=A*B;
D=cos(C);
It seems that the following approach would be
Wuppertinger I have to do calculations in matlab where the matrix is very large. I've made sure to use matrix operations etc where possible. Now try fine-tuning. So let A, B, C and D be matrices: C=A*B;
D=cos(C);
It seems that the following approach would be
Wuppertinger I have to do calculations in matlab where the matrix is very large. I've made sure to use matrix operations etc where possible. Now try fine-tuning. So let A, B, C and D be matrices: C=A*B;
D=cos(C);
It seems that the following approach would be
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
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
Finn My class has string variables and I want to initialize them with the values passed to the constructor. My teacher thought we could pass strings as const references: MyClass::MyClass(const std::string &title){
this->title = title
}
But Clang-Tidy recomm
Finn My class has string variables and I want to initialize them with the values passed to the constructor. My teacher thought we could pass strings as const references: MyClass::MyClass(const std::string &title){
this->title = title
}
But Clang-Tidy recomm
Finn My class has string variables and I want to initialize them with the values passed to the constructor. My teacher thought we could pass strings as const references: MyClass::MyClass(const std::string &title){
this->title = title
}
But Clang-Tidy recomm
Finn My class has string variables and I want to initialize them with the values passed to the constructor. My teacher thought we could pass strings as const references: MyClass::MyClass(const std::string &title){
this->title = title
}
But Clang-Tidy recomm
Finn My class has string variables and I want to initialize them with the values passed to the constructor. My teacher thought we could pass strings as const references: MyClass::MyClass(const std::string &title){
this->title = title
}
But Clang-Tidy recomm
Richard Walton: I'm currently thinking about how best to take the AST generated with Antlr and turn it into a useful object that can be used in my program. The purpose of my grammar (besides learning) is to create an executable (runtime interpreted) language.
Darko I am trying to use this code adapted from the datasetmeuse data<-list(var1,var2,x,y)
coordinates(data)=~x+y
grid = spsample(data, type = "regular", cellsize = c(0.05,0.05))
vt <- variogram(var1 ~ var2,data=data)
vt.fit <- fit.variogram(vt, vgm(0.2, "