like static/fixed arrays?

The idea is when you need that memory only at compile time

think about what you just proposed for a second

think about what you just proposed for a second

Maybe I didn't explain myself well. I'll look for that info later

What is so dangerous about C functions such as fgets or fflush?

Nobody knows this?

Nobody knows this in detail?*

Welcome JoHnY! Please read the pinned message 🙂

G

But is it true that C++ used to be called C with classes?

yes

and the compiler is called cfront

Instead of g++?

yeah

At the beginning, constexpr functions could only be recursive. Now you can define functions as constexpr with any code inside

template metaprogramming came before constexpr and is still prevalent for example constexpr auto foo(auto bar) -> T how do you deduce it

i asked bjrane himself for that...i think im quite stupid at the time

Meow

What is so dangerous about C functions such as fgets or fflush?

actually they're not gets getc however they do

think about what you just proposed for a second

Containers might be useful in `constexpr`contexts as well, but therefore you would need to have "dynamic memory at compile time" IIRC this has been initially proposed in 2017

actually they're not gets getc however they do

Why is gets and getc dangerous?

Why is gets and getc dangerous?

buffer overflow from stdin

buffer overflow from stdin

What can I search for or what can I do to learn the specifics on how it was remedied with scanf, and how to perform the buffer overflow?

What can I search for or what can I do to learn the specifics on how it was remedied with scanf, and how to perform the buffer overflow?

you can set the parse size for scanf but most of the time people didnt realize that so its your fault

while gets and getc

Can I recover my deleted data from my laptop??????

:33

Oh this pack is bigger

If I write const int a; int *p =&a; Is this wrong..?

If I write const int a; int *p =&a; Is this wrong..?

No

But undefined behavior

UB is right and wrong at the same time

because this const modifier isn’t really constant

It just tells the compiler that this variable shouldn’t be reassigned

Aka immutable

Using this information, the compiler can perform real constant propagation optimisation

See the three shits of javascript: let const var

Hey dude, do you have permission?

I mean if you don't answer within 5 mins I'll delete that and warn you for not obeying rules

/warn ad for a crappy event

that message has link different

yes we have the permission

uh, no?

https://godbolt.org/z/ss9hEc

[Meme] Learning C, thought this little tidbit was hilarious https://redd.it/anerd8 by @programmer_humor

/warn ad for a crappy event

Ty

But undefined behavior

UB is right and wrong at the same time

because this const modifier isn’t really constant

so basically saying, ub is nondeterministic

anything could happen, philosophical absurdity

people used to call it nasal demon

then why you could assign a mutable value into "const"

char *foo = "bar" this is actually undefined

assigning a const char[4] to char*

under pointer decay, const char[4] -> const char * -> char *

immutable -> mutable mutable -> immutable

what is this, insanity?

char *foo = "bar" this is actually undefined

Why this is undefined?

Why this is undefined?

cause you make "constant" stuff "modifiable"

cause you make "constant" stuff "modifiable"

If you would change the value of foo again, this would be undefined. But just init a C-style string with "bar" isnt undefined in C.

/ban no

alright, i will stop the flamewar here, actually this is ambiguous

under c, ub under c++, plain out compilation error

If I write const int a; int *p =&a; Is this wrong..?

but since this snippet is valid and invalid in both c and c++

we dont have an answer, pigs can fly

would you mind using visual studio to check the type of the string literal, it will exactly show you const char[strlen(this) + 1]

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/string_literal

you be getting a pointer, that's the consequence of array decaying

well, you could see this as a terrific past of c++ trying to smoosh with c

then isn't it contradictory? "constant"/immutable things can be made mutable

why is this not?

error: invalid conversion from 'const int*' to 'int*'

sounds paradoxic to me

people used to call it nasal demon

I call it dragons

I call it dragons

uh, runescape?

uh, runescape?

Mmmh? No

Just do you want a dragon in your server room?

Mmmh? No

dragon slayer😂

Probably not

And if you want a dragon, you want a tamed one

One that you can put in a wheel to generate power