| "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Dec 23 05:09PM -0800 On 12/16/2022 12:36 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > https://youtu.be/22vbhTi1ieI > Some people do not seem to care if some people die, as along as the > science gets done. Some of the hard core science people actually do not seem to care if their experiments cause hardcore pain! https://youtu.be/AJtDema_aao?list=RDGMEMHDXYb1_DDSgDsobPsOFxpA Cult? Damn... |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Dec 23 08:32PM -0800 > No, but I have a Class 1 HGV license which means I can drive trucks up to 44 > tons in the UK and I wouldn't let someone with only a car license anywhere near > those sorts of loads. But the safety rules are ... different ... in the US. Well, shit happens! Argh! |
| Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com>: Dec 24 11:40AM -0800 > hand written, _not_ generated by tools. A recursive descent parser is not that > difficult to write, and writing by hand gives more control in a number of areas > including syntax error reporting. The other issue is that often the parser is relatively small component of a much larger program, consisting of source files in C or C++. If you write the parser using a parser generator, then you have two sources. So you've got to attach the yacc source to the program source, then you've got to specify how to invoke yacc to generate the C. That adds considerable complication to the build system and introduces several points at which it could break. |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Dec 24 08:58AM +0100 Am 23.12.2022 um 10:26 schrieb wij: > } > }; > How should AA::f be written depending on T(T&) or T() is available? if constexpr( is_copy_constructible_v<T> ) or if constexpr( is_default_constructible_v<T> ) |
| Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: Dec 24 11:29AM On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 08:58:17 +0100 > if constexpr( is_copy_constructible_v<T> ) >or > if constexpr( is_default_constructible_v<T> ) I've often wondered why they had to overload constexpr for these sorts of tests. Why not just have: if (is_copy_constructible_v(T)) ? After all, the typeid(T) built-in already works like that. |
| Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee>: Dec 24 06:57PM +0200 > tests. Why not just have: > if (is_copy_constructible_v(T)) ? > After all, the typeid(T) built-in already works like that. constexpr is not needed for is_copy_constructible_v(), but for the next line which would presumable actually attempt to copy-construct the thing. This next line would trigger a compiler error otherwise. |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Dec 24 06:10PM +0100 > tests. Why not just have: > if (is_copy_constructible_v(T)) ? > After all, the typeid(T) built-in already works like that. If constexpr makes it possible that the code inside the if-block is only syntactically compileable. I.e. if you use a placemnt new inside the if block the code is actually only compiled if the constexpr expression is true. |
| 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