Search Results

Search found 51 results on 3 pages for 'fredoverflow'.

Page 2/3 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3  | Next Page >

  • Why are enums considered compound types?

    - by FredOverflow
    Arrays, functions, pointers, references, classes, unions, enumerations and pointers to members are compound types. My understanding of a compound type is that is based on other type(s). For example, T[n], T* and T& are all based on T. Then what other type(s) is an enumeration based on? Or if my understanding of compound types is incorrect, what exactly is it about a type that makes it a compound type? Is compound simply a synonym for user-defined?

    Read the article

  • Wildcards vs. generic methods

    - by FredOverflow
    Is there any practical difference between the following approaches to print all elements in a range? public static void printA(Iterable<?> range) { for (Object o : range) { System.out.println(o); } } public static <T> void printB(Iterable<T> range) { for (T x : range) { System.out.println(x); } } Apparently, printB involves an additional checked cast to Object (see line 16), which seems rather stupid to me -- isn't everything an Object anyway? public static void printA(java.lang.Iterable); Code: 0: aload_0 1: invokeinterface #18, 1; //InterfaceMethod java/lang/Iterable.iterator:()Ljava/util/Iterator; 6: astore_2 7: goto 24 10: aload_2 11: invokeinterface #24, 1; //InterfaceMethod java/util/Iterator.next:()Ljava/lang/Object; 16: astore_1 17: getstatic #30; //Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream; 20: aload_1 21: invokevirtual #36; //Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/Object;)V 24: aload_2 25: invokeinterface #42, 1; //InterfaceMethod java/util/Iterator.hasNext:()Z 30: ifne 10 33: return public static void printB(java.lang.Iterable); Code: 0: aload_0 1: invokeinterface #18, 1; //InterfaceMethod java/lang/Iterable.iterator:()Ljava/util/Iterator; 6: astore_2 7: goto 27 10: aload_2 11: invokeinterface #24, 1; //InterfaceMethod java/util/Iterator.next:()Ljava/lang/Object; 16: checkcast #3; //class java/lang/Object 19: astore_1 20: getstatic #30; //Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream; 23: aload_1 24: invokevirtual #36; //Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/Object;)V 27: aload_2 28: invokeinterface #42, 1; //InterfaceMethod java/util/Iterator.hasNext:()Z 33: ifne 10 36: return

    Read the article

  • What are the pitfalls of ADL?

    - by FredOverflow
    Some time ago I read an article that explained several pitfalls of argument dependent lookup, but I cannot find it anymore. It was about gaining access to things that you should not have access to or something like that. So I thought I'd ask here: what are the pitfalls of ADL?

    Read the article

  • stealing inside the move constructor

    - by FredOverflow
    During the implementation of the move constructor of a toy class, I noticed a pattern: array2D(array2D&& that) { data_ = that.data_; that.data_ = 0; height_ = that.height_; that.height_ = 0; width_ = that.width_; that.width_ = 0; size_ = that.size_; that.size_ = 0; } The pattern obviously being: member = that.member; that.member = 0; So I wrote a preprocessor macro to make stealing less verbose and error-prone: #define STEAL(member) member = that.member; that.member = 0; Now the implementation looks as following: array2D(array2D&& that) { STEAL(data_); STEAL(height_); STEAL(width_); STEAL(size_); } Are there any downsides to this? Is there a cleaner solution that does not require the preprocessor?

    Read the article

  • defining a simple implicit Arbitary

    - by FredOverflow
    I have a type Foo with a constructor that takes an Int. How do I define an implicit Arbitrary for Foo to be used with scalacheck? implicit def arbFoo: Arbitrary[Foo] = ??? I came up with the following solution, but it's a bit too "manual" and low-level for my taste: val fooGen = for (i <- Gen.choose(Int.MinValue, Int.MaxValue)) yield new Foo(i) implicit def arbFoo: Arbitrary[Foo] = Arbitrary(fooGen) Ideally, I would want a higher-order function where I just have to plug in an Int => Foo function. I managed to cut it down to: implicit def arbFoo = Arbitrary(Gen.resultOf((i: Int) => new Foo(i))) But I still feel like there has got to be a slightly simpler way.

    Read the article

  • Communication between lexer and parser

    - by FredOverflow
    Every time I write a simple lexer and parser, I stumble upon the same question: how should the lexer and the parser communicate? I see four different approaches: The lexer eagerly converts the entire input string into a vector of tokens. Once this is done, the vector is fed to the parser which converts it into a tree. This is by far the simplest solution to implement, but since all tokens are stored in memory, it wastes a lot of space. Each time the lexer finds a token, it invokes a function on the parser, passing the current token. In my experience, this only works if the parser can naturally be implemented as a state machine like LALR parsers. By contrast, I don't think it would work at all for recursive descent parsers. Each time the parser needs a token, it asks the lexer for the next one. This is very easy to implement in C# due to the yield keyword, but quite hard in C++ which doesn't have it. The lexer and parser communicate through an asynchronous queue. This is commonly known under the title "producer/consumer", and it should simplify the communication between the lexer and the parser a lot. Does it also outperform the other solutions on multicores? Or is lexing too trivial? Is my analysis sound? Are there other approaches I haven't thought of? What is used in real-world compilers? It would be really cool if compiler writers like Eric Lippert could shed some light on this issue.

    Read the article

  • How do I compile variadic templates conditionally?

    - by FredOverflow
    Is there a macro that tells me whether or not my compiler supports variadic templates? #ifdef VARIADIC_TEMPLATES_AVAILABLE template<typename... Args> void coolstuff(Args&&... args); #else ??? #endif If they are not supported, I guess I would simulate them with a bunch of overloads. Any better ideas? Maybe there are preprocessor libraries that can ease the job?

    Read the article

  • SFINAE + sizeof = detect if expression compiles

    - by FredOverflow
    I just found out how to check if operator<< is provided for a type. template<class T> T& lvalue_of_type(); template<class T> T rvalue_of_type(); template<class T> struct is_printable { template<class U> static char test(char(*)[sizeof( lvalue_of_type<std::ostream>() << rvalue_of_type<U>() )]); template<class U> static long test(...); enum { value = 1 == sizeof test<T>(0) }; typedef boost::integral_constant<bool, value> type; }; Is this trick well-known, or have I just won the metaprogramming Nobel prize? ;) EDIT: I made the code simpler to understand and easier to adapt with two global function template declarations lvalue_of_type and rvalue_of_type.

    Read the article

  • Where can I learn advanced Haskell?

    - by FredOverflow
    In a comment to one of my answers, SO user sdcwc essentially pointed out that the following code: comb 0 = [[]] comb n = let rest = comb (n-1) in map ('0':) rest ++ map ('1':) rest could be replaced by: comb n = replicateM n "01" which had me completely stunned. Now I am looking for a tutorial, book or PDF that teaches these advanced concepts. I am not looking for a "what's a monad" tutorial aimed at beginners or online references explaining the type of replicateM. I want to learn how to think in monads and use them effectively, monadic "patterns" if you will.

    Read the article

  • rvalues and temporary objects in the FCD

    - by FredOverflow
    It took me quite some time to understand the difference between an rvalue and a temporary object. But now the final committee draft states on page 75: An rvalue [...] is an xvalue, a temporary object or subobject thereof, or a value that is not associated with an object. I can't believe my eyes. This must be an error, right?

    Read the article

  • Can my tortoise vs. hare race be improved?

    - by FredOverflow
    Here is my code for detecting cycles in a linked list: do { hare = hare.next(); if (hare == back) return; hare = hare.next(); if (hare == back) return; tortoise = tortoise.next(); } while (tortoise != hare); throw new AssertionError("cyclic linkage"); Is there a way to get rid of the code duplication inside the loop? Am I right in assuming that I don't need a check after making the tortoise take a step forward? As I see it, the tortoise can never reach the end of the list before the hare (contrary to the fable). Any other ways to simplify/beautify this code?

    Read the article

  • Critique my heap debugger

    - by FredOverflow
    I wrote the following heap debugger in order to demonstrate memory leaks, double deletes and wrong forms of deletes (i.e. trying to delete an array with delete p instead of delete[] p) to beginning programmers. I would love to get some feedback on that from strong C++ programmers because I have never done this before and I'm sure I've done some stupid mistakes. Thanks! #include <cstdlib> #include <iostream> #include <new> namespace { const int ALIGNMENT = 16; const char* const ERR = "*** ERROR: "; int counter = 0; struct heap_debugger { heap_debugger() { std::cerr << "*** heap debugger started\n"; } ~heap_debugger() { std::cerr << "*** heap debugger shutting down\n"; if (counter > 0) { std::cerr << ERR << "failed to release memory " << counter << " times\n"; } else if (counter < 0) { std::cerr << ERR << (-counter) << " double deletes detected\n"; } } } instance; void* allocate(size_t size, const char* kind_of_memory, size_t token) throw (std::bad_alloc) { void* raw = malloc(size + ALIGNMENT); if (raw == 0) throw std::bad_alloc(); *static_cast<size_t*>(raw) = token; void* payload = static_cast<char*>(raw) + ALIGNMENT; ++counter; std::cerr << "*** allocated " << kind_of_memory << " at " << payload << " (" << size << " bytes)\n"; return payload; } void release(void* payload, const char* kind_of_memory, size_t correct_token, size_t wrong_token) throw () { if (payload == 0) return; std::cerr << "*** releasing " << kind_of_memory << " at " << payload << '\n'; --counter; void* raw = static_cast<char*>(payload) - ALIGNMENT; size_t* token = static_cast<size_t*>(raw); if (*token == correct_token) { *token = 0xDEADBEEF; free(raw); } else if (*token == wrong_token) { *token = 0x177E6A7; std::cerr << ERR << "wrong form of delete\n"; } else { std::cerr << ERR << "double delete\n"; } } } void* operator new(size_t size) throw (std::bad_alloc) { return allocate(size, "non-array memory", 0x5AFE6A8D); } void* operator new[](size_t size) throw (std::bad_alloc) { return allocate(size, " array memory", 0x5AFE6A8E); } void operator delete(void* payload) throw () { release(payload, "non-array memory", 0x5AFE6A8D, 0x5AFE6A8E); } void operator delete[](void* payload) throw () { release(payload, " array memory", 0x5AFE6A8E, 0x5AFE6A8D); }

    Read the article

  • Why can operator-> be overloaded manually?

    - by FredOverflow
    Wouldn't it make sense if p->m was just syntactic sugar for (*p).m? Essentially, every operator-> that I have ever written could have been implemented as follows: Foo::Foo* operator->() { return &**this; } Is there any case where I would want p->m to mean something else than (*p).m?

    Read the article

  • variadic constructors

    - by FredOverflow
    Are variadic constructors supposed to hide the implicitly generated ones, i.e. the default constructor and the copy constructor? struct Foo { template<typename... Args> Foo(Args&&... x) { std::cout << "inside the variadic constructor\n"; } }; int main() { Foo a; Foo b(a); } Somehow I was expecting this to print nothing after reading this answer, but it prints inside the variadic constructor twice on g++ 4.5.0 :( Is this behavior correct?

    Read the article

  • algorithms that destruct and copy_construct

    - by FredOverflow
    I am currently building my own toy vector for fun, and I was wondering if there is something like the following in the current or next standard or in Boost? template<class T> void destruct(T* begin, T* end) { while (begin != end) { begin -> ~T(); ++begin; } } template<class T> T* copy_construct(T* begin, T* end, T* dst) { while (begin != end) { new(dst) T(*begin); ++begin; ++dst; } return dst; }

    Read the article

  • empty base class optimization

    - by FredOverflow
    Two quotes from the C++ standard, §1.8: An object is a region of storage. Base class subobjects may have zero size. I don't think a region of storage can be of size zero. That would mean that some base class subobjects aren't actually objects. Opinions?

    Read the article

  • delegating into private parts

    - by FredOverflow
    Sometimes, C++'s notion of privacy just baffles me :-) class Foo { struct Bar; Bar* p; public: Bar* operator->() const { return p; } }; struct Foo::Bar { void baz() { std::cout << "inside baz\n"; } }; int main() { Foo::Bar b; // error: 'struct Foo::Bar' is private within this context Foo f; f->baz(); // fine } Since Foo::Bar is private, I cannot declare b in main. Yet I can call methods from Foo::Bar just fine. Why the hell is this allowed? Was that an accident or by design?

    Read the article

  • What exactly is a variable in C++?

    - by FredOverflow
    The standard says A variable is introduced by the declaration of an object. The variable's name denotes the object. But what does this definition actually mean? Does a variable give a name to an object, i.e. are variables just a naming mechanism for otherwise anonymous objects? Or is a variable the name itself? Or is a variable a named object in the sense that every variable is also an object? Or is a variable just a "proxy" with a name that "delegates" all operations to the real object? To confuse things further, many C++ books seem to treat variables and objects as synonyms. What is your take on this?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3  | Next Page >