It seems like I had to inline quite a bit of code here. I\'m wondering if it\'s bad design practice to leave this entirely in a header file like this:
I have a macro definition in header file like this: // header.h ARRAY_SZ(a) = ((int) sizeof(a)/sizeof(a[0]));
I have a class with private member variables declared in a header file. In my constructor, I pass in some filenames and create other objects using those names. This works fine. When I try to add anoth
Consider the following little piece of code: // all of these include other headers, lots of code: #include \"myheader1.h\"
I have no idea what this means. But here is the code that it supposely is happening in. //=======================================================================================
I took the following code from the examples page on Asio class tcp_connection : public boost::enable_shared_from_this<tcp_connection>
When I do: less /usr/include/stdio.h (which is only a C library - nothing to do with C++) I see __THROW a开发者_如何学Gofter quite a few function declarations.
Is there a Win32 equivalent to the linuxheader file?I\'m working on a Linux t开发者_StackOverflow中文版o Windows port (and my first time doing so) and it\'s failing on this file.When writing WIN32API
I was browsing for an alternative to using so many shared_ptrs, and found an excellent reply in a comment section:
The standard convention seems to be to give CUDA source-code files a .cu extension, to distinguish them from C files with a .c extension.What\'s the corresponding convention for CUDA-specifi开发者_JAV
加载中,请稍侯......