comp.lang.c++ Google Group

Re: Resorting a map (copying a map to another with different Compare)

pauldontspamt...@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo (Pavel) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:03:28 UT

nw wrote:
The issue is that you "depth" is not a template (compile-time) but a
function (run-time) parameter. Thus, the recursive instantiation of a
template function does not have a stop condition.. The below seems to
work (hopefully this is what you meant to do):
-----------cut here---------
using namespace std;

Re: Selection of overloaded function

danie...@earthlink.net (Daniel T.) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:17:20 UT

[Broken code snipped]
Your code is pretty broken unless I'm missing something basic. However
it may help you to understand name hiding.
class A { };
class B { };
struct Base {
void foo(A&);
struct Derived : Base {
void foo(B&);
int main() {
A a;
Derived d;
d.foo(a); // will not compile, see below

Re: why is binding non-const ref to return value bad?

mikl...@gmail.com (Michael Tsang) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:11:59 UT

Use r-value references instead

Re: Run Gnu compiler under VMWare?

mikl...@gmail.com (Michael Tsang) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:11:01 UT

Run these app in Wine on Linux

Re: Selection of overloaded function

mikl...@gmail.com (Michael Tsang) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:06:55 UT

Fred wrote:
This is a syntax error. What do you mean?

Re: Stanard compliant bit-casting

joshuamaur...@gmail.com (Joshua Maurice) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:26:08 UT

Also, I started re-reading
[link]
just now. It appears as though it's not perfectly accurate either. It
ignores the allowance that you can cast between POD types with common
leading parts and access the common leading parts as expected. The

Re: Stanard compliant bit-casting

joshuamaur...@gmail.com (Joshua Maurice) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:09:05 UT

See my previous post else-thread for my understanding.
//Start code for foo.cpp
using namespace std;
int main()
{
cout << sizeof(int) << " " << sizeof(short) << endl;
{
int x = 1;
short* s = reinterpret_cast<short*>(&x);
s[0] = 2;
s[1] = 3;
cout << x << endl;
}
{
int x = 1;

Re: Stanard compliant bit-casting

james.ka...@gmail.com (James Kanze) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:29:57 UT

Why was it added to the language, then?
[...]
The only compiler I've seen that documents it as being supported
is g++ (but I've not really looked at all of the documentation).
And even with g++, it depends on the context---there are cases
where it will fail.
From a QoI point of view: if the union or the reinterpret_cast

Re: Has thought been given given to a cleaned up C? Possibly called C+.

thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk (Phil Carmody) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:27:27 UT

puke

Re: Stanard compliant bit-casting

james.ka...@gmail.com (James Kanze) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:21:34 UT

On Mar 11, 12:23 am, "Robbie Hatley"
Actually, it's called type punning. In C++ (and in C), a "cast"
is an explicit type conversion. Any explicit type conversion:
int to double, for example, or even just removing const.
But you're right that type punning should be avoided in general.
It has its place in some very low level software, but unless

Re: why is binding non-const ref to return value bad?

james.ka...@gmail.com (James Kanze) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:05:28 UT

There should be no requirement that all of the reviewers be
exceptionally gifted in C++. On the other hand, I don't think
reviewers should encourage less readable and more dangerous
coding styles. Unless there's a good reason for using a
reference, stick with the value.
The compiler always has leeway to throw in an extra copy. In

Re: why is binding non-const ref to return value bad?

james.ka...@gmail.com (James Kanze) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:55:40 UT

I'd disagree with that recommendation. There will normally be
the same number of copies, and the latter is just more verbose
and slightly less clear. It's also dangerous if at some later
date, AFunction is modified to return a const reference.
The simple answer is: because the standard says so.
Nothing to do with lifetimes. You can't use a temporary to

Re: functions and overloading

james.ka...@gmail.com (James Kanze) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:48:51 UT

Yes:-).
Seriously, it depends on the definitions you use, but I'd say
that there are functions in the generated binary, and that it is
the function definition in the source code which causes them to
exist. So if the functions have different definitions, they are
two separate functions
But that's just the way I use the words

Re: Bounds Checking in debug mode

ian-n...@hotmail.com (Ian Collins) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:42:22 UT

If you happen to be developing on obsolete platforms!

Re: initialization order of function local static variables

james.ka...@gmail.com (James Kanze) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:41:11 UT

[...]
I'm pretty sure that that's the intent, but it really could be
worded more clearly.
[...]
Historically, a lot of compilers got this wrong. (I even used
one which called the destructor of local statics whose
constructor had never been called, because program flow never
passed there.) Today... I'd like to say that I'd be a bit