Search Results

Search found 397 results on 16 pages for 'c 0x'.

Page 6/16 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • is there a simple timed lock algorithm avoiding deadlock on multiple mutexes?

    - by Vicente Botet Escriba
    C++0x thread library or Boost.thread define a non-member variadic template function that locks all mutex at once that helps to avoid deadlock. template <class L1, class L2, class... L3> void lock(L1&, L2&, L3&...); The same can be applied to a non-member variadic template function try_lock_until, which locks all the mutex until a given time is reached that helps to avoid deadlock like lock(...). template <class Clock, class Duration, class L1, class L2, class... L3> void try_lock_until( const chrono::time_point<Clock,Duration>& abs_time, L1&, L2&, L3&...); I have an implementation that follows the same design as the Boost function boost::lock(...). But this is quite complex. As I can be missing something evident I wanted to know if: is there a simple timed lock algorithm avoiding deadlock on multiple mutexes? If no simple implementation exists, can this justify a proposal to Boost? P.S. Please avoid posting complex solutions.

    Read the article

  • Difference between std::result_of and decltype

    - by Luc Touraille
    I have some trouble understanding the need for std::result_of in C++0x. If I understood correctly, result_of is used to obtain the resulting type of invoking a function object with certain types of parameters. For example: template <typename F, typename Arg> typename std::result_of<F(Arg)> invoke(F f, Arg a) { return f(a); } I don't really see the difference with the following code: template <typename F, typename Arg> auto invoke(F f, Arg a) -> decltype(f(a)) //uses the f parameter { return f(a); } or template <typename F, typename Arg> auto invoke(F f, Arg a) -> decltype(F()(a)); //"constructs" an F { return f(a); } The only problem I can see with these two solutions is that we need to either: have an instance of the functor to use it in the expression passed to decltype. know a defined constructor for the functor. Am I right in thinking that the only difference between decltype and result_of is that the first one needs an expression whereas the second does not?

    Read the article

  • About variadic templates

    - by chedi
    Hi, I'm currently experiencing with the new c++0x variadic templates, and it's quit fun, Although I have a question about the process of member instanciation. in this example, I'm trying to emulate the strongly typed enum with the possibility of choose a random valid strong enum (this is used for unit testing). #include<vector> #include<iostream> using namespace std; template<unsigned... values> struct sp_enum; /* this is the solution I found, declaring a globar var vector<unsigned> _data; and it work just fine */ template<> struct sp_enum<>{ static const unsigned _count = 0; static vector<unsigned> _data; }; vector<unsigned> sp_enum<>::_data; template<unsigned T, unsigned... values> struct sp_enum<T, values...> : private sp_enum<values...>{ static const unsigned _count = sp_enum<values...>::_count+1; static vector<unsigned> _data; sp_enum( ) : sp_enum<values...>(values...) {_data.push_back(T);} sp_enum(unsigned v ) {_data.push_back(v);} sp_enum(unsigned v, unsigned...) : sp_enum<values...>(values...) {_data.push_back(v);} }; template<unsigned T, unsigned... values> vector<unsigned> sp_enum<T, values...>::_data; int main(){ enum class t:unsigned{Default = 5, t1, t2}; sp_enum<t::Default, t::t1, t::t2> test; cout <<test._count << endl << test._data.size() << endl; for(auto i= test._data.rbegin();i != test._data.rend();++i){cout<< *i<< ":";} } the result I'm getting with this code is : 3 1 5: can someone point me what I'm messing here ??? Ps: using gcc 4.4.3

    Read the article

  • Odd behavior when recursively building a return type for variadic functions

    - by Dennis Zickefoose
    This is probably going to be a really simple explanation, but I'm going to give as much backstory as possible in case I'm wrong. Advanced apologies for being so verbose. I'm using gcc4.5, and I realize the c++0x support is still somewhat experimental, but I'm going to act on the assumption that there's a non-bug related reason for the behavior I'm seeing. I'm experimenting with variadic function templates. The end goal was to build a cons-list out of std::pair. It wasn't meant to be a custom type, just a string of pair objects. The function that constructs the list would have to be in some way recursive, with the ultimate return value being dependent on the result of the recursive calls. As an added twist, successive parameters are added together before being inserted into the list. So if I pass [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] the end result should be {1+2, {3+4, 5+6}}. My initial attempt was fairly naive. A function, Build, with two overloads. One took two identical parameters and simply returned their sum. The other took two parameters and a parameter pack. The return value was a pair consisting of the sum of the two set parameters, and the recursive call. In retrospect, this was obviously a flawed strategy, because the function isn't declared when I try to figure out its return type, so it has no choice but to resolve to the non-recursive version. That I understand. Where I got confused was the second iteration. I decided to make those functions static members of a template class. The function calls themselves are not parameterized, but instead the entire class is. My assumption was that when the recursive function attempts to generate its return type, it would instantiate a whole new version of the structure with its own static function, and everything would work itself out. The result was: "error: no matching function for call to BuildStruct<double, double, char, char>::Go(const char&, const char&)" The offending code: static auto Go(const Type& t0, const Type& t1, const Types&... rest) -> std::pair<Type, decltype(BuildStruct<Types...>::Go(rest...))> My confusion comes from the fact that the parameters to BuildStruct should always be the same types as the arguments sent to BuildStruct::Go, but in the error code Go is missing the initial two double parameters. What am I missing here? If my initial assumption about how the static functions would be chosen was incorrect, why is it trying to call the wrong function rather than just not finding a function at all? It seems to just be mixing types willy-nilly, and I just can't come up with an explanation as to why. If I add additional parameters to the initial call, it always burrows down to that last step before failing, so presumably the recursion itself is at least partially working. This is in direct contrast to the initial attempt, which always failed to find a function call right away. Ultimately, I've gotten past the problem, with a fairly elegant solution that hardly resembles either of the first two attempts. So I know how to do what I want to do. I'm looking for an explanation for the failure I saw. Full code to follow since I'm sure my verbal description was insufficient. First some boilerplate, if you feel compelled to execute the code and see it for yourself. Then the initial attempt, which failed reasonably, then the second attempt, which did not. #include <iostream> using std::cout; using std::endl; #include <utility> template<typename T1, typename T2> std::ostream& operator <<(std::ostream& str, const std::pair<T1, T2>& p) { return str << "[" << p.first << ", " << p.second << "]"; } //Insert code here int main() { Execute(5, 6, 4.3, 2.2, 'c', 'd'); Execute(5, 6, 4.3, 2.2); Execute(5, 6); return 0; } Non-struct solution: template<typename Type> Type BuildFunction(const Type& t0, const Type& t1) { return t0 + t1; } template<typename Type, typename... Rest> auto BuildFunction(const Type& t0, const Type& t1, const Rest&... rest) -> std::pair<Type, decltype(BuildFunction(rest...))> { return std::pair<Type, decltype(BuildFunction(rest...))> (t0 + t1, BuildFunction(rest...)); } template<typename... Types> void Execute(const Types&... t) { cout << BuildFunction(t...) << endl; } Resulting errors: test.cpp: In function 'void Execute(const Types& ...) [with Types = {int, int, double, double, char, char}]': test.cpp:33:35: instantiated from here test.cpp:28:3: error: no matching function for call to 'BuildFunction(const int&, const int&, const double&, const double&, const char&, const char&)' Struct solution: template<typename... Types> struct BuildStruct; template<typename Type> struct BuildStruct<Type, Type> { static Type Go(const Type& t0, const Type& t1) { return t0 + t1; } }; template<typename Type, typename... Types> struct BuildStruct<Type, Type, Types...> { static auto Go(const Type& t0, const Type& t1, const Types&... rest) -> std::pair<Type, decltype(BuildStruct<Types...>::Go(rest...))> { return std::pair<Type, decltype(BuildStruct<Types...>::Go(rest...))> (t0 + t1, BuildStruct<Types...>::Go(rest...)); } }; template<typename... Types> void Execute(const Types&... t) { cout << BuildStruct<Types...>::Go(t...) << endl; } Resulting errors: test.cpp: In instantiation of 'BuildStruct<int, int, double, double, char, char>': test.cpp:33:3: instantiated from 'void Execute(const Types& ...) [with Types = {int, int, double, double, char, char}]' test.cpp:38:41: instantiated from here test.cpp:24:15: error: no matching function for call to 'BuildStruct<double, double, char, char>::Go(const char&, const char&)' test.cpp:24:15: note: candidate is: static std::pair<Type, decltype (BuildStruct<Types ...>::Go(BuildStruct<Type, Type, Types ...>::Go::rest ...))> BuildStruct<Type, Type, Types ...>::Go(const Type&, const Type&, const Types& ...) [with Type = double, Types = {char, char}, decltype (BuildStruct<Types ...>::Go(BuildStruct<Type, Type, Types ...>::Go::rest ...)) = char] test.cpp: In function 'void Execute(const Types& ...) [with Types = {int, int, double, double, char, char}]': test.cpp:38:41: instantiated from here test.cpp:33:3: error: 'Go' is not a member of 'BuildStruct<int, int, double, double, char, char>'

    Read the article

  • non-class rvalues always have cv-unqualified types

    - by FredOverflow
    §3.10 section 9 says "non-class rvalues always have cv-unqualified types". That made me wonder... int foo() { return 5; } const int bar() { return 5; } void pass_int(int&& i) { std::cout << "rvalue\n"; } void pass_int(const int&& i) { std::cout << "const rvalue\n"; } int main() { pass_int(foo()); // prints "rvalue" pass_int(bar()); // prints "const rvalue" } According to the standard, there is no such thing as a const rvalue for non-class types, yet bar() prefers to bind to const int&&. Is this a compiler bug? EDIT: Apparently, this is also a const rvalue :)

    Read the article

  • So can unique_ptr be used safely in stl collections?

    - by DanDan
    I am confused with unique_ptr and rvalue move philosophy. Let's say we have two collections: std::vector<std::auto_ptr<int>> autoCollection; std::vector<std::unique_ptr<int>> uniqueCollection; Now I would expect the following to fail, as there is no telling what the algorithm is doing internally and maybe making internal pivot copies and the like, thus ripping away ownership from the auto_ptr: std::sort(autoCollection.begin(), autoCollection.end()); I get this. And the compiler rightly disallows this happening. But then I do this: std::sort(uniqueCollection.begin(), uniqueCollection.end()); And this compiles. And I do not understand why. I did not think unique_ptrs could be copied. Does this mean a pivot value cannot be taken, so the sort is less efficient? Or is this pivot actually a move, which in fact is as dangerous as the collection of auto_ptrs, and should be disallowed by the compiler? I think I am missing some crucial piece of information, so I eagerly await someone to supply me with the aha! moment.

    Read the article

  • Const references when dereferencing iterator on set, starting from Visual Studio 2010

    - by Patrick
    Starting from Visual Studio 2010, iterating over a set seems to return an iterator that dereferences the data as 'const data' instead of non-const. The following code is an example of something that does compile on Visual Studio 2005, but not on 2010 (this is an artificial example, but clearly illustrates the problem we found on our own code). In this example, I have a class that stores a position together with a temperature. I define comparison operators (not all them, just enough to illustrate the problem) that only use the position, not the temperature. The point is that for me two instances are identical if the position is identical; I don't care about the temperature. #include <set> class DataPoint { public: DataPoint (int x, int y) : m_x(x), m_y(y), m_temperature(0) {} void setTemperature(double t) {m_temperature = t;} bool operator<(const DataPoint& rhs) const { if (m_x==rhs.m_x) return m_y<rhs.m_y; else return m_x<rhs.m_x; } bool operator==(const DataPoint& rhs) const { if (m_x!=rhs.m_x) return false; if (m_y!=rhs.m_y) return false; return true; } private: int m_x; int m_y; double m_temperature; }; typedef std::set<DataPoint> DataPointCollection; void main(void) { DataPointCollection points; points.insert (DataPoint(1,1)); points.insert (DataPoint(1,1)); points.insert (DataPoint(1,2)); points.insert (DataPoint(1,3)); points.insert (DataPoint(1,1)); for (DataPointCollection::iterator it=points.begin();it!=points.end();++it) { DataPoint &point = *it; point.setTemperature(10); } } In the main routine I have a set to which I add some points. To check the correctness of the comparison operator, I add data points with the same position multiple times. When writing the contents of the set, I can clearly see there are only 3 points in the set. The for-loop loops over the set, and sets the temperature. Logically this is allowed, since the temperature is not used in the comparison operators. This code compiles correctly in Visual Studio 2005, but gives compilation errors in Visual Studio 2010 on the following line (in the for-loop): DataPoint &point = *it; The error given is that it can't assign a "const DataPoint" to a [non-const] "DataPoint &". It seems that you have no decent (= non-dirty) way of writing this code in VS2010 if you have a comparison operator that only compares parts of the data members. Possible solutions are: Adding a const-cast to the line where it gives an error Making temperature mutable and making setTemperature a const method But to me both solutions seem rather 'dirty'. It looks like the C++ standards committee overlooked this situation. Or not? What are clean solutions to solve this problem? Did some of you encounter this same problem and how did you solve it? Patrick

    Read the article

  • Can a stack have an exception safe method for returning and removing the top element with move seman

    - by Motti
    In an answer to a question about std::stack::pop() I claimed that the reason pop does not return the value is for exception safety reason (what happens if the copy constructor throws). @Konrad commented that now with move semantics this is no longer relevant. Is this true? AFAIK, move constructors can throw, but perhaps with noexcept it can still be achieved. For bonus points what thread safety guarantees can this operation supply?

    Read the article

  • How can I get this code involving unique_ptr and emplace_back to compile?

    - by Neil G
    #include <vector> #include <memory> using namespace std; class A { public: A(): i(new int) {} A(A const& a) = delete; A(A &&a): i(move(a.i)) {} unique_ptr<int> i; }; class AGroup { public: void AddA(A &&a) { a_.emplace_back(move(a)); } vector<A> a_; }; int main() { AGroup ag; ag.AddA(A()); return 0; } does not compile... (says that unique_ptr's copy constructor is deleted) I tried replacing move with forward. Not sure if I did it right, but it didn't work for me.

    Read the article

  • Range-based `for` statement definition redundancy

    - by GMan - Save the Unicorns
    Looking at n3092, in §6.5.4 we find the equivalency for a range-based for loop. It then goes on to say what __begin and __end are equal to. It differentiates between arrays and other types, and I find this redundant (aka, confusing). It says for arrays types that __begin and __end are what you expect: a pointer to the first and a pointer to one-past the end. Then for other types, __begin and __end are equal to begin(__range) and end(__range), with ADL. Namespace std is associated, in order to find the std::begin and std::end defined in <iterator>, §24.6.5. However, if we look at the definition of std::begin and std::end, they are both defined for arrays as well as container types. And the array versions do exactly the same as above: pointer to the first, pointer to one-past the end. Why is there a need to differentiate arrays from other types, when the definition given for other types would work just as well, finding std::begin and std::end? Some abridged quotes for convenience: §24.6.5 The range-based for statement — if _RangeT is an array type, begin-expr and end-expr are __range and __range + __bound, respectively, where __bound is the array bound. If _RangeT is an array of unknown size or an array of incomplete type, the program is ill-formed. — otherwise, begin-expr and end-expr are begin(_range) and end(_range), respectively, where begin and end are looked up with argument-dependent lookup (3.4.2). For the purposes of this name lookup, namespace std is an associated namespace. and §24.6.5 range access template T* begin(T (&array)[N]); Returns: array. template T* end(T (&array)[N]); Returns: array + N.

    Read the article

  • How can I get this code involving unique_ptr to compile?!

    - by Neil G
    #include <vector> #include <memory> using namespace std; class A { public: A(): i(new int) {} A(A const& a) = delete; A(A &&a): i(move(a.i)) {} unique_ptr<int> i; }; class AGroup { public: void AddA(A &&a) { a_.emplace_back(move(a)); } vector<A> a_; }; int main() { AGroup ag; ag.AddA(A()); return 0; } does not compile... (says that unique_ptr's copy constructor is deleted) I tried replacing move with forward. Not sure if I did it right, but it didn't work for me.

    Read the article

  • Mixins, variadic templates, and CRTP in C++

    - by Eitan
    Here's the scenario: I'd like to have a host class that can have a variable number of mixins (not too hard with variadic templates--see for example http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.103.144). However, I'd also like the mixins to be parameterized by the host class, so that they can refer to its public types (using the CRTP idiom). The problem arises when trying to mix the too--the correct syntax is unclear to me. For example, the following code fails to compile with g++ 4.4.1: template <template<class> class... Mixins> class Host : public Mixins<Host<Mixins>>... { public: template <class... Args> Host(Args&&... args) : Mixins<Host>(std::forward<Args>(args))... {} }; template <class Host> struct Mix1 {}; template <class Host> struct Mix2 {}; typedef Host<Mix1, Mix2> TopHost; TopHost *th = new TopHost(Mix1<TopHost>(), Mix2<TopHost>()); With the error: tst.cpp: In constructor ‘Host<Mixins>::Host(Args&& ...) [with Args = Mix1<Host<Mix1, Mix2> >, Mix2<Host<Mix1, Mix2> >, Mixins = Mix1, Mix2]’: tst.cpp:33: instantiated from here tst.cpp:18: error: type ‘Mix1<Host<Mix1, Mix2> >’ is not a direct base of ‘Host<Mix1, Mix2>’ tst.cpp:18: error: type ‘Mix2<Host<Mix1, Mix2> >’ is not a direct base of ‘Host<Mix1, Mix2>’ Does anyone have successful experience mixing variadic templates with CRTP?

    Read the article

  • Move constructor and assignment operator: why no default for derived classes?

    - by doublep
    Why there is default move constructor or assignment operator not created for derived classes? To demonstrate what I mean; having this setup code: #include <utility> struct A { A () { } A (A&&) { throw 0; } A& operator= (A&&) { throw 0; } }; struct B : A { }; either of the following lines throws: A x (std::move (A ()); A x; x = A (); but neither of the following does: B x (std::move (B ()); B x; x = B (); In case it matters, I tested with GCC 4.4.

    Read the article

  • How to properly use references with variadic templates

    - by Hippicoder
    I have something like the following code: template<typename T1, typename T2, typename T3> void inc(T1& t1, T2& t2, T3& t3) { ++t1; ++t2; ++t3; } template<typename T1, typename T2> void inc(T1& t1, T2& t2) { ++t1; ++t2; } template<typename T1> void inc(T1& t1) { ++t1; } I'd like to reimplement it using the proposed variadic templates from the upcoming standard. However all the examples I've seen so far online seem to be printf like examples, the difference here seems to be the use of references. I've come up with the following: template<typename T> void inc(T&& t) { ++t; } template<typename T,typename ... Args> void inc(T&& t, Args&& ... args) { ++t inc(args...); } What I'd like to know is: Should I be using r-values instead of references? Possible hints or clues as to how to accomplish what I want correctly. What guarantees does the new proposed standard provide wrt the issue of the recursive function calls, is there some indication that the above variadic version will be as optimal as the original? (should I add inline or some-such?)

    Read the article

  • Can nullptr be emulated in gcc?

    - by nuzz
    I saw that nullptr was implemented in Visual Studio 2010. I like the concept and want to start using it as soon as possible; however GCC does not support it yet. My code needs to run on both (but doesn't have to compile with other compilers). Is there a way to "emulate" it? Something like: #define nullptr NULL (but obviously that wouldn't work well at all, I was simply showing what I meant).

    Read the article

  • unique_ptr boost equivalent?

    - by wowus
    Is there some equivalent class for C++1x's std::unique_ptr in the boost libraries? The behavior I'm looking for is being able to have an exception-safe factory function, like so... std::unique_ptr<Base> create_base() { return std::unique_ptr<Base>(new Derived); } void some_other_function() { std::unique_ptr<Base> b = create_base(); // Do some stuff with b that may or may not throw an exception... // Now b is destructed automagically. }

    Read the article

  • Moving inserted container element if possible

    - by doublep
    I'm trying to achieve the following optimization in my container library: when inserting an lvalue-referenced element, copy it to internal storage; but when inserting rvalue-referenced element, move it if supported. The optimization is supposed to be useful e.g. if contained element type is something like std::vector, where moving if possible would give substantial speedup. However, so far I was unable to devise any working scheme for this. My container is quite complicated, so I can't just duplicate insert() code several times: it is large. I want to keep all "real" code in some inner helper, say do_insert() (may be templated) and various insert()-like functions would just call that with different arguments. My best bet code for this (a prototype, of course, without doing anything real): #include <iostream> #include <utility> struct element { element () { }; element (element&&) { std::cerr << "moving\n"; } }; struct container { void insert (const element& value) { do_insert (value); } void insert (element&& value) { do_insert (std::move (value)); } private: template <typename Arg> void do_insert (Arg arg) { element x (arg); } }; int main () { { // Shouldn't move. container c; element x; c.insert (x); } { // Should move. container c; c.insert (element ()); } } However, this doesn't work at least with GCC 4.4 and 4.5: it never prints "moving" on stderr. Or is what I want impossible to achieve and that's why emplace()-like functions exist in the first place?

    Read the article

  • boost::asio::async_resolve Problem

    - by Moo-Juice
    Hi All, I'm in the process of constructing a Socket class that uses boost::asio. To start with, I made a connect method that took a host and a port and resolved it to an IP address. This worked well, so I decided to look in to async_resolve. However, my callback always gets an error code of 995 (using the same destination host/port as when it worked synchronously). code: Function that starts the resolution: // resolve a host asynchronously template<typename ResolveHandler> void resolveHost(const String& _host, Port _port, ResolveHandler _handler) const { boost::asio::ip::tcp::endpoint ret; boost::asio::ip::tcp::resolver::query query(_host, boost::lexical_cast<std::string>(_port)); boost::asio::ip::tcp::resolver r(m_IOService); r.async_resolve(query, _handler); }; // eo resolveHost Code that calls this function: void Socket::connect(const String& _host, Port _port) { // Anon function for resolution of the host-name and asynchronous calling of the above auto anonResolve = [this](const boost::system::error_code& _errorCode, boost::asio::ip::tcp::resolver_iterator _epIt) { // raise event onResolve.raise(SocketResolveEventArgs(*this, !_errorCode ? (*_epIt).host_name() : String(""), _errorCode)); // perform connect, calling back to anonymous function if(!_errorCode) connect(*_epIt); }; // Resolve the host calling back to anonymous function Root::instance().resolveHost(_host, _port, anonResolve); }; // eo connect The message() function of the error_code is: The I/O operation has been aborted because of either a thread exit or an application request And my main.cpp looks like this: int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) { morse::Root root; TextSocket s; s.connect("somehost.com", 1234); while(true) { root.performIO(); // calls io_service::run_one() } return 0; } Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Some clarification on rvalue references

    - by Dennis Zickefoose
    First: where are std::move and std::forward defined? I know what they do, but I can't find proof that any standard header is required to include them. In gcc44 sometimes std::move is available, and sometimes its not, so a definitive include directive would be useful. When implementing move semantics, the source is presumably left in an undefined state. Should this state necessarily be a valid state for the object? Obviously, you need to be able to call the object's destructor, and be able to assign to it by whatever means the class exposes. But should other operations be valid? I suppose what I'm asking is, if your class guarantees certain invariants, should you strive to enforce those invariants when the user has said they don't care about them anymore? Next: when you don't care about move semantics, are there any limitations that would cause a non-const reference to be preferred over an rvalue reference when dealing with function parameters? void function(T&); over void function(T&&); From a caller's perspective, being able to pass functions temporary values is occasionally useful, so it seems as though one should grant that option whenever it is feasible to do so. And rvalue references are themselves lvalues, so you can't inadvertently call a move-constructor instead of a copy-constructor, or something like that. I don't see a downside, but I'm sure there is one. Which brings me to my final question. You still can not bind temporaries to non-const references. But you can bind them to non-const rvalue references. And you can then pass along that reference as a non-const reference in another function. void function1(int& r) { r++; } void function2(int&& r) { function1(r); } int main() { function1(5); //bad function2(5); //good } Besides the fact that it doesn't do anything, is there anything wrong with that code? My gut says of course not, since changing rvalue references is kind of the whole point to their existence. And if the passed value is legitimately const, the compiler will catch it and yell at you. But by all appearances, this is a runaround of a mechanism that was presumably put in place for a reason, so I'd just like confirmation that I'm not doing anything foolish.

    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

  • Partial template specialization for more than one typename

    - by Matt Joiner
    In the following code, I want to consider functions (Ops) that have void return to instead be considered to return true. The type Retval, and the return value of Op are always matching. I'm not able to discriminate using the type traits shown here, and attempts to create a partial template specialization based on Retval have failed due the presence of the other template variables, Op and Args. How do I specialize only some variables in a template specialization without getting errors? Is there any other way to alter behaviour based on the return type of Op? template <typename Retval, typename Op, typename... Args> Retval single_op_wrapper( Retval const failval, char const *const opname, Op const op, Cpfs &cpfs, Args... args) { try { CallContext callctx(cpfs, opname); Retval retval; if (std::is_same<bool, Retval>::value) { (callctx.*op)(args...); retval = true; } else { retval = (callctx.*op)(args...); } assert(retval != failval); callctx.commit(cpfs); return retval; } catch (CpfsError const &exc) { cpfs_errno_set(exc.fserrno); LOGF(Info, "Failed with %s", cpfs_errno_str(exc.fserrno)); } return failval; }

    Read the article

  • Splitting a double vector into equal parts

    - by Cosmin
    Greetings, Any input on a way to divide a std::vector into two equal parts ? I need to find the smallest possible difference between |part1 - part2|. This is how I'm doing it now, but from what you can probably tell it will yield a non-optimal split in some cases. auto mid = std::find_if(prim, ultim, [&](double temp) -> bool { if(tempsum >= sum) return true; tempsum += temp; sum -= temp; return false; }); The vector is sorted, highest to lowest, values can indeed appear twice. I'm not expecting part1 and part2 to have the same numbers of elements, but sum(part1) should be as close as possible to sum(part2) For example if we would have { 2.4, 0.12, 1.26, 0.51, 0.70 }, the best split would be { 2.4, 0.12 } and { 1.26, 0.51, 0.70 }. If it helps, I'm trying to achieve the splitting algorithm for the Shannon Fano encoding. Any input is appreciated, thanks!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >