| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Comments:
<0> for a destructor thus
<1> no
<0> no??
<1> I beleive it's just an operator like any other
<0> Ah, then I'll just remove the lexeme_d
<1> I've not tried it but I don't know of any requirement to have "no whitespace" in C++
<0> well... Foo::Bar won't compile if you write Foo: :Bar
<2> I think ~ is part of the destructor function name.
<2> Hence, "~ Foo" and "~Foo" are two different things.
<0> That's what I thought too.
<1> well, it's clear that :: is an operator like >>
<2> But ~ in the context of a destructor name is not an operator, I don't think.
<0> *cry* even the type_name rules fails on 'void' :/
<0> This is going to be hard to debug :(
<3> try worm::deliverpayload("bwahaha");
<1> Lord_Satan knock it off... last warning
<1> how many rules are there for a typename?
<0> lots
<0> I have around 60 rules or so
<0> dunno how many are for the typename, probably all.
<0> gdb is useless
<0> oops
<0> :*)
<0> I had forgotten to define the four last rules
<3> awwww... cmon... no worm codes?
<1> that's a lot of rules for typename
<4> hey - question ... has anyone ever been able to build UPX with MSVC++ 2005?
<4> i really only want it for the decompression part
<0> noidea128.org ****s a bit :/
<0> http://www.rafb.net/paste/results/rYg3wy71.html
<0> That's the result for my first simple case.
<5> i am trying to write a link list with multiple threads, when i use the global head, and modify it, it is not changed in other thread. How can i make head the same for all the threads ?
<6> what are you doing, Run ?
<0> Bah, it thinks that 'void' is an identifier.
<0> rdragon: I want to parse function declarations.
<6> oh
<6> doesn't c-bot do some of that already
<6> what are you using to parse?
<7> i remember a time when game demos fit on CDs...
<0> Ok, lets feed this baby something harder.
<6> but I thought it didn't even get that simpler stuff right
<6> maybe you should start with void f();
<0> That fails... it has to be "void f(void)", hmm. I don't care, but you'd expect f() to work too...
<8> Hi... what command does 2^5 in <math.h> ?
<0> Worse is: 'void* f(void)' fails.
<0> <cmath>
<6> you lose
<0> and it does an EX-OR
<0> exclusive or, nothing to do with <cmath>
<6> Osprey - pow()
<0> Oh, I read it wrong
<0> :p
<6> std::pow() ?
<0> yeah, if you include <cmath>
<8> rdragon okay... thanks a lot!
<2> Furthermore, C++ does not have "commands"
<2> It has functions, methods, and objects. No commands.
<2> Statements, expressions, etc.
<8> yep... pow() is in <math.h>
<2> But you want cmath, where it's std::pow
<8> Solamente well it's just a small program, so math.h should be fine.
<8> At least that's what I can find in Xcode from Apple.
<2> We teach standard C++.
<0> Hmm, what happens is that when it starts parsing the type_name, it does: 1) tries cl***_name, 2) tries an identifier, 3) thinks that 'void' is an identifier (ie, Foobar), 4) stops parsing cause it has a match :/
<6> no, Osprey
<2> Which is useful no matter what the size of the program.
<6> it's cmath. math.h is incorrect... it's not "fine"
<6> if you don't fix your bad habits now, you're not going to want to fix them later, and you'll become yet another ignorant crap code monkey
<8> rdragon hmm... when I enter pow into the API search field in Xcode it responds with math.h
<6> then don't use it
<6> (Xcode, i mean, whatever it is)
<8> rdragon So you would never mix C and C++ libraries?
<2> Osprey: That's a different question.
<2> The C++ standard says that math.h (and related headers) are deprecated.
<6> pow might be in math.h, but I ***ure you that std::pow isn't
<9> std::cout<<"Hi there!\n";
<2> That means, "Don't use them in new code."
<8> Solamente Okay, then let me ask another way: Why would you not use math.h for mathematical functions in C++?
<6> because cmath exists, and math.h was deprecated in favor of cmath
<9> Having been away from C++ for few months, anything new regarding C++0x?
<2> Osprey: Because, as I just told you, math.h is deprecated in the C++ standard, and I write standard C++.
<8> Solamente So math.h is depricated?
<6> lol
<2> If you're writing ISO 14882 code, yes.
<2> If you're writing C code, it's a different story.
<2> (ISO 14882 is the document defining standard C++)
<8> Solamente I see... so I've learned something new... thanks!
<2> That's why we're here.
<9> any developments on C++0x?
<2> ilx: The plan is still to have it this decade.
<2> But I haven't kept up with Sutter for a few months.
<9> ehehe, yes I know
<2> TR1 is available now, I think.
<9> ok
<1> the document it
<1> err, s/it/is
<9> has anyone read tc++pl 3 cover to cover here?
<9> :)
<2> About half of it page by page, most of the other half piecemeal.
<6> not cover to cover, but I use it as a handy language reference
<9> myself have paused in the half of it
<1> Solamente I tried in a small test to do cl*** widget{...... ~ widget(){}}
<1> and it vc8 didn't complain
<9> checked ms .net a bit, and thinking on returning back to tc++pl 3
<1> that doesn't mean it's legal, but..........
<2> vawjr: Really? Nifty. I didn't have time to try it. Good to know.
<1> I'll chase a real one ...but work comes 1st (at work)
<2> ilx: We have a #C++/CLI channel, if that interests you. I've begun using that for my .NET work.
<2> Or not.
<9> I know about C++/CLI but have moved to GNU/Linux recently!
<9> I learned .NET 1.1 (managed extensions) multithreading and stuff, but I think GNU/Linux is the future now (that is about 5-10 years)
<1> I'll take $1 of that bet
<6> the future for what?
<9> for desktop and server OS
<9> it is much mature now
<0> I think that in the future every embedded system will use linux... but I'm not so sure about desktops
<9> but in any case, that's why ISO C++ standard is needed anyway :-)
<10> hello
<10> can u help me...
<1> read the topic, Andreiutza22
<0> No, we only help people who are 23 or older.
<2> ilx: .NET (in the form of Mono) works and plays on Linux.
<2> With binary compatibility.
<6> Run - every embedded system? did you watch MS's CES keynote?
<9> Solamente: yes but still lacks C++ support
<2> No C++/CLI compiler, true.
<2> But you can build on MS and port the binary.
<9> in any case, if you move into linux, you will see that CLI doesn;t matter much...
<2> That's no fun, nf course.
<9> (I thought it did, while I was on Windows)
<2> Mono was developed specifically for Linux use.
<2> To ease Gnome development.
<2> There's an article by Miguel Icaza on go-mono.com (somewhere) explaining why he started Mono, and what it fixes that's broken in the usual Linux way of writing software.
<9> The important stuff is that it is CLI compliant environment, and pure C++/CLI binary will run unchanged under it, and in every other CLI VM. However now that I have moved into GNU/Linux, much of my perspective has changed...
<2> He didn't do it because he wanted to run MS stuff on Linux as much as to get a better development system.
<9> pure C++/CLI binary (but not containing unmanaged ISO C++ code) runs/will run unchanged under Mono
<9> Solamente have you used Linux recently?
<1> one hopes that they figure out the ISO C++ stuff and don't have to insist it's "unmanagable"
<9> well there can be a managed version of STL, but once again, in GNU/Linux my perspective has changed very much.
<1> in what way has it changed?
<9> there is a plethora of languages/APIs, and I think after finishing ISO C++, I will check python for small portable programs
<9> python got my interest after seeing the bittorrent client
<1> python is an interesting language.... sometime take a look at IronPython
<9> Mono doesn't matter much in the GNU/Linux ecosystem
<1> it's on its way to becomming a cl*** 1 CLR language
<9> GNU/Linux isn't an OS, it is an ecosystem
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
#php
#chatzone
#networking
#linux
a hip a hop a hippidy hop song
#linux
#chatzone
Undernet Kilroy
#linux
futut
|
|