| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Comments:
<0> Holy incoming thunderbanger, batman!
<0> http://www.weatherunderground.com/radar/radblast.asp?zoommode=pan&prevzoom=zoom&num=6&frame=0&delay=15&scale=1.000&noclutter=0&ID=FWS&type=N0R&showstorms=0&lat=32.96000290&lon=-96.82918549&label=Addison,%20TX&map.x=400&map.y=240&scale=1.000¢erx=400¢ery=240&showlabels=1&rainsnow=0&lightning=0&lerror=20&num_stns_min=2&num_stns_max=9999&avg_off=9999
<0> Right up the dry line, that one could get a bit nasty
<0> Poor Judge Judy, always dealing with the inbred offspring of the Hatfields and McCoys
<1> is there a standart C++ way of copying data like a long table to another? i know the C way but i was wondering...?
<0> A long table?
<0> That might involve the carpentry cl***
<1> long t[10] for example
<1> to another long[10]
<2> eeewwwww, an array
<0> array, not table
<1> yes sorry
<1> just forgot the english word ^__^;;
<0> :D
<0> The C way will still work. I don't know if there's a C++ way offhand.
<0> If it was a vector, it'd be easy
<2> any container
<3> copy()
<1> well i guess i'll use copy then; i don't need a STL container for what i do, it's not necessary
<3> copy() == C++
<2> arrays are fraught w/ hazards
<0> Much like peterhu's bedroom
<2> (magic numbers (the size) etc)
<1> vawjr>i know but it should be used when necessary ;)
<4> anyone know offhand what the windows winsock limit is on number of active connections/sockets per process?
<2> Klaim at least use one of the better arrays, like say, boost::array
<1> you know, i use a lot of STL containers(list,vector,etc), but in the case i'm working now it's really not necessarry ^__^;;
<1> thanks anyway
<4> yeah i use STL a lot too.. probably should get off my STL addiction and use boost more
<2> boost isn't an instead
<5> Klaim: std::vector please....think of the children
<0> Yes, think of the kittens
<5> them too
<2> Klaim I was suggesting boost::array because it provides begin() and end() so you don't have the magic number problem
<4> what's so bad about std::vector?!
<5> ImHungry: raw arrays are bad, not std::vector
<4> ah yes of course
<4> i like to use raw arrays sometimes to throw people off and introduce creeping memory corruption in my programs.. job security after all
<2> that would get your *** fired from where I work
<5> ImHungry: brilliant.
<4> ;)
<1> vawjr>yes i know it, but i know the exact size of the array and it will never whange, so i guess it's not necessary
<5> one thing that arrays have over vectors are initialiser lists
<5> s/are/is
<4> vawjr, well.. where do you work?
<2> yup, so will the tr1::array, I believe
<4> yes, initializer lists are nice
<5> but hopefully taht'll be fixed in 2031
<4> also if you REALLY need speed i guess you save a few instructions in using raw arrays
<4> but at that point if you care about those instructions so much, you probably should be using hand-tuned vector math in ASM or something
<2> ImHungry there's no slowdown using boost::array <sigh>
<0> Yes there is, ViPr has code that proves it!
<0> He will paste it for you in private, vic
<0> :/
<4> vawjr, really? how can that be? i mean unless operator[] is inlined and returns just reference and does nothing else..
<1> if it was not in that particular case, i guess i would have used boos::array
<6> hummm
<3> boost::array uses a an array anyway, no?
<3> (so how could it be slower)
<2> it iS an array
<0> How's life, ni
<6> all right I guess.
<0> That bad, eh
<6> I could use some cookies I think.
<0> Excellent idea
<2> it adds comparisons, swap, and begin(), end(), front(), and back(), iirc
<0> You could make brownies, too
<6> I don't want to MAKE cookies
<0> Wimp
<6> I just want to eat some.
<5> I could murder a fresh brownie or two now
<5> JB hop to it
<6> It's the middle of the damned day.
<0> But understandable
<0> So what
<0> I'm eating pizza and watching Judge Judy
<0> I have to do something to keep khan entertained
<6> you should be working
<6> lazy.
<0> I'm all caught up
<4> wow boost::array is what i have been looking for.. neet
<6> so, quit.
<0> I think that might have a detrimental effect on my income
<1> hehe
<7> not like affording your current accomodations, a urine stained carboard box, requires an exhorbinant income
<7> JBlitzen = bum
<7> also, judge judy is trash, for trash
<7> although likely a stapple of good texan tv
<7> along with king of the hill
<8> jb/peter you guys know java?
<0> Do I detect the pungent odor of jealousy
<0> huhuhu
<0> I heard of it once, Tech
<0> Just ask, maybe you'll twitch a synapse
<8> in Java how do I go about creating an array of objects?
<1> vawjr> sorry, just really understood why you told me to use boodt::array >__< you're right
<8> I tried mycl*** x[] x = new mycl***[10]; it creates an array, but none of them are initialized
<3> Blah[] x
<0> http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~jphb/java/arrays.html
<0> ?
<0> Oh
<3> And they'll never be initialized
<3> You have to instantiate them
<1> hu?
<7> yeah
<7> they should all be null ptr
<1> ah yes, the new[] operator will create the array object, not the object in the array ;)
<1> as all is object
<3> Nah, ints are not
<1> that is the java way
<1> yes but int are not used "like pointers" as cl*** are
<1> see, int is a native type in java
<0> Hey, a lady on Judge Judy just said skank
<0> I'm not horrified, but they beeped out bitch and not skank
<7> .NET has muuuch better terminology than java
<0> They are not hip to the modern language
<7> jb = bitch + skank
<1> well is'nt it the same way in C++? if i do :
<0> Shut up, skank
<0> !
<1> ah no, in C++ it's not a pointer at all cases
<1> ah to be clear :
<1> when you do in java : mycl*** t[] = new mycl***[x];
<1> it is like if you do in c++ :
<1> mycl*** *t = new mycl***[x];
<1> and not :
<1> mycl*** t[x];
<9> yes
<1> hmmmm no, i am wrong
<1> it's more like if you do : mycl*** *t;
<1> because in c++ the new mycl***[x] instruction will initialize the objects
<7> java: foo[] f = new foo[10]; /* f[0] ... f[9] initialized to null ptr */ c++: foo** f = new foo*[10]; /* f[0]...f[9] is undefined */
<0> Yeah, it's apparently just an array of references
<0> How gaey
<1> so there is not equivalent in C++... guess you just have to know what java does when you initialize an array : just initialize an array object, not what is inside (there is nothing inside)
<7> which is why in .NET they're called reference types
<8> sigh, gota love java crap :/
<8> Klaim: can I do it so I get an array of non null ptr's?
<7> i know of know way, but i'm no java expert
<7> there's no way to do it in C#
<7> well
<7> that's not true, initializer syntax
<1> i am not a java expert but if i remember well there is a way
<7> foo[] f = new f[10] { new foo(), new foo(), ... }
<5> TchRaven: you call it "java crap" yet it seems like you yourself don't know java?
<1> maybe on the java room you can find someone who knows ^__^
<9> Klaim, sorry what do you want in java?
<9> I know my java :)
<7> tech is looking for a way to initialize an array of objects to new instances, at declaration time
<0> for i 0 to 9, f[i] = new techraven();
<7> rather than looping through the array ***igning to each element
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
#php
you caught in if a haboob blows up
#linux
#c
danusia undernet
#AllNiteCafe
nj-mysql-###.uplinkearth.com
HIS SPUNK TASTES GOOD
#AllNiteCafe
#MissKitten
|
|