21–30 of 84 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it were for real how would you implement smart pointers?
In C obviously or you know, in inline assembly since it seems that it isn't going anywhere. But joking aside they could be implemented by the compilers similar to how std::function is implemented today.
This could be a joke. Or not. It is very much in keeping with the current direction of C++, which appears to be: "Oh no, C++ cannot keep pace with modern systems languages, let's repair it by whatever means possible" Their heart is in the right place, but perhaps this accelerated process of mutating the language will ultimately be what kills it. Personally, after having deep expertise in C++(11/14) I jumped ship to G…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In C obviously or you know, in inline assembly since it seems that it isn't going anywhere. But joking aside they could be implemented by the compilers similar to how std::function is implemented today.
Inline assembly isn't standard C or C++ though?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In C obviously or you know, in inline assembly since it seems that it isn't going anywhere. But joking aside they could be implemented by the compilers similar to how std::function is implemented today.
Inline assembly isn't standard C or C++ though?
Meaning ANSI C does not refer at all to inline Assembly, from its point of view it does not exist.
ANSI C++ on other hand, specifies the asm keyword and that it should enable a compiler specific way to write inline Assembly.
But yeah, neither of them actually specifies how it should look.
I'm glad I decided against moving to C++
The fact that this headline cannot be distinguished from April Fools joke by other commenters seems to say a lot about the direction in which C++ standard committee is heading.
I finally “got” that this is a joke when they discussed the future alternatives:
> For copyable and assignable references you can use std::reference_wrapper. (http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/functional/referenc...)
and thought, ha ha, an “assignable reference” instead of a “pointer”, that’s obviously completely different. :) What a subtle joke!
Only now I see that reference_wrapper is apparently completely real and exists since C++11. Why does this even exist? My head hurts from banging it against the desk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In C obviously or you know, in inline assembly since it seems that it isn't going anywhere. But joking aside they could be implemented by the compilers similar to how std::function is implemented today.
Inline assembly isn't standard C or C++ though?
The fact that this headline cannot be distinguished from April Fools joke by other commenters seems to say a lot about the direction in which C++ standard committee is heading.
It’s not like the idea is completely crazy; pointer misuse is a big source of all kinds of problems, Rust shows how much can be done without constantly using raw pointers, and what are the C++ Core Guidelines if not an effort in exactly this direction? I finally “got” that this is a joke when they discussed the future alternatives: > For copyable and assignable references you can use std::reference_wrapper. ( http://…
That still crazy though :)