I have a small application that process a large quantity of (relatively small) files. It runs sequentially: it loads data from a file, perform operations on it, and move to the next file.
point From 2003 C++03 Document : Elaborated type specifiers :section 3.4.4, para 1: \"An elaborated-type-specifiermay be used to refer toa
Given a variadic macro of the form: #define MY_CALL_RETURN_F(FType, FId, ...) \\ if(/*prelude omitted*/) {\\
Please take a look at the following simple code: class Foo { public: Foo(){} ~Foo(){} Foo(const Foo&){}
Is it legal for a C++0x compiler to optimize int func(int&& a){ a = 3; return a; } to int func(int&& a){
This code compiles fine: int main() { class lm { public: int operator()(int x,int y){ return x+y; } };
I\'ve been frustrated by a simple variadic template function: constexpr size_t num_args () { return 0; }
Some time ago I was told, that the usual pattern to implement two-ary operators needs a final move in the return.
According to my compiler gcc-4.6 the call to func in the example below is ambigous. void func(const std::string &str) {
Seeing as C++11 supports move semantics, when initializing data members from arguments, should we attempt to move the value instead of copying it?
加载中,请稍侯......