Type: Posts; User: razzle
Search took 0.02 seconds.
C++ is not defined by some "manual". It's defined by the C++ standard and it states that the allocation of bit-fields is implementation dependent (see 9.6 bit-fields). This means "trying out" may...
September 19th, 2014, 06:21 PM
Sorry, but as you may have noticed I'm very competitive and when I've defeated someone in a discussion I usually perform a small war dance ritual to celebrate the occasion.
So before you engage...
September 19th, 2014, 05:46 PM
September 19th, 2014, 05:22 PM
It certainly isn't. WPF is just another technology Microsoft may abandon just like they did the MFC.
If you're developing in native C++ I strongly recommend you have a hard look at the Qt...
September 19th, 2014, 05:02 PM
Ahh, you mean the curiously recurring pizza problem in computer science? :)
September 18th, 2014, 11:28 PM
It's very simple. In a polymorphic design a base class public interface must be functionally complete. It must sport the virtual methods needed for it to be used in the proper, wanted and expected...
September 12th, 2014, 03:30 PM
You've replied to my answer to superbonzo (#43) and not to my answer to you (#41).
It's better if you defend the stupidities you write yourself and not the stupidities superbonzo write, but since...
September 12th, 2014, 03:24 PM
I think it's quite a lot to this,
September 12th, 2014, 02:48 AM
If your main point is that you don't share my definition of type safety (which I've made perfectly clear throughout this thread) then stop mumbling and spit it out for heaven's sake.
September 11th, 2014, 07:30 AM
It's pointless to argue with me only if you are wrong. :) And this time you're wrong at two levels.
First, you claim Boost.Any is type safe but it isn't because any_cast may fail at runtime. And...
September 11th, 2014, 02:18 AM
Your argumentation has two serious flaws.
You seem to think that certain kinds of external subsystems will infect C++ with dynamic typing and there's no cure against it, almost like a Zombie...
September 9th, 2014, 10:28 AM
I mean that restricting a language to the use of goto's only would render it not Turing complete. For Turing completeness an imperative language requires conditional branching. It means in addition...
September 9th, 2014, 01:54 AM
It's quite simple, types must match.
Say you have these variables,
char myChar; // a char
char* myCharPtr; // a pointer to char
int* myIntPtr; // a pointer to int
Now, &myChar represents a...
September 9th, 2014, 01:14 AM
Then please post the whole original question exactly as it was given to you. What's the name of the course and at what educational level?
My guess is that you are holding back information or have...
September 7th, 2014, 05:01 AM
I strongly recommend you review this design.
If you end up having to turn a type safe upcast into an unsafe downcast for implementation reasons only, something is seriously wrong.
September 7th, 2014, 03:51 AM
Yes, only 1-dimensional programmers use N-dimensional arrays. :)
In C++ there's almost always a better data structure than an N-dimensional array (where N is higher than 2).
I suggest you...
September 5th, 2014, 04:44 PM
If you want generiticity there's a Boost library class called MultiArray.
September 5th, 2014, 04:40 PM
Well that's fine. If your Variant class is a variation of the Visitor design pattern then type resolution will take place at compile time and it will be type safe.
But then on the other hand it's...
September 5th, 2014, 04:05 PM
Please give me one such problem.
September 3rd, 2014, 10:51 AM
Well, I think I can now. :)
The villages are visited in order along the street (from lower distances to higher).
The first and the last hospitals are special cases. We start with the first...
August 31st, 2014, 11:32 AM
Yes there is but I cannot help you because I'm not into this type of math. The principle is simpel enougth though. One starts with a known NP complete problem and then reduce it to ones own problem...
August 31st, 2014, 11:02 AM
No, the greedy approach is not exact but neither is the "balancing" algorithm you're fiddling on. At least so far no one has shown that it leads to an optimal solution and so far no one has shown...
August 29th, 2014, 04:07 PM
I don't understand why you mean by "the whole naming thing"?
But if you're referring to a confusing terminology I can only say this is one important reason to stick to the established terminology....
August 29th, 2014, 11:05 AM
No! Trading away the type safety of C++ for reasons of programmer's convenience is a monumental blunder of almost biblical proportions. Static type checking is at the very foundation of C++. If you...
August 29th, 2014, 12:57 AM
Again, one of the most prominent characteristics of C++ is its type safety. It's amazing how much effort is spent on giving that away for nothing. It would be much better if all this effort went into...
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width
This is a CodeGuru survey question.