My question is the same as discussed in this thread from five years ago (which has no good answer). I\'m serializing my objects into a byte buffer, like so:
It's difficult to tell 开发者_JAVA百科what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical andcannot be reasonably answered in its current form.
While trying to port some code to compile in linux I get peculiar compilation errors. Searchingthrough the codebase I finally manage to get it down to the following code.
I would like to enable support for C++0x in GCC with -std=c++0x. I don\'t absolutely necessarily need any of the currently supported C++11 features in GCC 4.5 (and soon 4.6), but I would like to start
g++ doesn\'t like: vector<int> x; x += 1,2,3,4,5; vector<string> y(x.size()); transform(x.begin(), x.end(), y.begin(), lexical_cast<string>);
I got a library that internally uses Boost\'s version of shared_ptr and exposes only those. For my application, I\'d like to use std::shared_ptr whenever possible though. Sadly, there is no direct con
I have a class that uses boost::variant to store a double or a string, like this : class value { boost::variant<double, std::string> val;
How do boost::numeric::ublas::vector and std::vector compare in runtime efficiency? Is it safe to assume that I can convert an entire program from using std::vector to use boost::numeric::ublas::vect
Example code from BGL: breadth_first_search(g, vertex(s, g), color_map(get(&VertexProps::color, g)).visitor(vis));
Does anyone had this problem ? When searching a partition with recursive_directory_iterator, when it reaches the end it crashes.
加载中,请稍侯......