Is this guaranteed to work: struct A { struct Gold {}; }; struct B : public A { typedef Gold BaseGold; struct Gold {};
What I read in the C++ standard about injected class names contradicts (as I see it) with the behavior of a sample program I will present shortly. Here\'s what I read:
I have something like either: __constant__ double PNT[ NUMCOORDS ]; __device__ double PNT[ NUMCOORDS ];
A point from the ISO C++ Draft n3290 : 3.4.0 2nd point A name “looked up in the context of an expression” is looked up as an unqualified name in the 开发者_运维技巧scope where the expression is f
A point from ISO draft n3290 section 3.4.2 paragraph 1: When the postfix-expression in a function call is an unqualified-id, other namespaces not considered during the usual unqualified lookup may b
I have the following code: #include \"stdafx.h\" #include <iostream> using namespace std; #include <conio.h>
$10.2/4- \"[ Note: Looking up a name in an elaborated-type-specifier (3.4.4) or base-specifier (Clause 10), for
class messageA { }; class messageB { }; template<class T> clas开发者_C百科s queue { public: virtual ~queue() {}
Compiling this code using g++ 4.2.1: struct S { }; template<typename T> struct ST { }; template<typename BaseType>
What part of the C++ specification restricts argument dependent lookup from finding function templates in the set of associated namespaces? In other words, why does the last call in main below fail to
加载中,请稍侯......