- "inline" works properly for me, Visual C++ 2015. - 13 Updates
- Hit Ctrl F3, to find the declaration of _Loop(). - 7 Updates
- delete pointer type user defined object - 1 Update
| Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>: Jan 16 11:32AM -0800 |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jan 16 07:40PM On 16/01/2017 19:32, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >> doesn't prove that the inline keyword is no more than a hint. > I know when it works, and I don't create .h files; according to Ian, > that means I'd have _no use for "inline". If you never create header files then you are not a serious/professional C or C++ programmer and have certainly never created anything other than trivial toy; you are instead a fucktarded annoying cunt and, more than likely, a troll. /Flibble |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Jan 17 08:42AM +1300 On 01/17/17 04:12 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > I know it works because I can't set a break point there, > on an inline function. See: > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cx3b23a3.aspx "*Microsoft Specific* The __inline keyword tells the compiler..." You do have a bit of a problem with underscores, don't you? -- Ian |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Jan 17 08:43AM +1300 On 01/17/17 08:32 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >> doesn't prove that the inline keyword is no more than a hint. > I know when it works, and I don't create .h files; > according to Ian, that means I'd have _no use for "inline". The compiler would inline the code without the hint. -- Ian |
| JiiPee <no@notvalid.com>: Jan 16 07:45PM On 16/01/2017 16:27, Bo Persson wrote: > The thing is that the compiler likely does all that, whether you add > inline to the function or not. But I tested this (with an object instead of int x;) and it did make a temporary variable and initialize it with the calling object (so it called copy constructor to it). |
| JiiPee <no@notvalid.com>: Jan 16 07:48PM On 16/01/2017 16:27, Bo Persson wrote: > The thing is that the compiler likely does all that, whether you add > inline to the function or not. You can test it yourself. Instead of int x, y; make your own class and pass its object. Then check if it goes into its copy contructor. void get(MyObject obj) { MyObject a; a = obj; //.. and do something with a. } |
| Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>: Jan 16 11:48AM -0800 |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jan 16 07:54PM On 16/01/2017 19:48, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >> trivial toy > It has works for me, for 35 years now, coding for my living. > I consolidate everything into one file, so I don't need a .h file. I would not hire you as you appear to be clueless. I feel sorry for anyone who has to maintain the crap that you output and I feel sorry for your clients who have paid you money for the software they mistakenly rely on. /Flibble |
| Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>: Jan 16 12:00PM -0800 |
| Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>: Jan 16 12:04PM -0800 |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jan 16 09:06PM On 16/01/2017 20:04, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > for the last 24 years... they haven't fired me yet. > You ? > If "maintenance" is your primary concern... Writing maintainable code is one of my concerns yes: the fact that it isn't one of yours tells us all we need to know about your professionalism. If I had to maintain your code I would do so by throwing all your code away and starting again: your output has no value whatsoever. [snip] /Flibble |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Jan 16 02:30PM -0800 On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 1:40:23 PM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote: Please don't swear here. Maybe he creates .hh and .hpp files. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust. http://webEbenezer.net |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jan 16 11:00PM > On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 1:40:23 PM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote: > Please don't swear here. > Maybe he creates .hh and .hpp files. Brian, please shut the fuck up. /Flibble |
| Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>: Jan 16 10:55AM -0800 |
| Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>: Jan 16 11:02AM -0800 |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jan 16 07:03PM On 16/01/2017 18:16, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >> standard includes, and then cannot understand why the code fails >> compiling deep inside the standard headers. > I don't create .h files, not a one. Your code is terrible and you are a fucking idiot mate. Macros (#defines) are unsafe and should be avoided where possible in C++. /Flibble |
| Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>: Jan 16 11:06AM -0800 |
| Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>: Jan 16 11:13AM -0800 |
| Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>: Jan 16 11:23AM -0800 |
| Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>: Jan 16 11:39AM -0800 |
| JiiPee <no@notvalid.com>: Jan 16 07:12PM On 16/01/2017 00:03, jonkalb wrote: > A smart pointer such as std::unique_ptr is definitely a better the way to go. There is an even better solution. Don't call new at all and just create a std::vector<Join>. When doing polymorphism I think pointers are needed.. so if Join is pointer to the parent class and wants to make polylmorphic calls to its child classes. doing std::vector<Join> would not allow that. So it depends.... |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment