BTW what is CRTP?

Nikal bhosdk pehli fursat mein

Nikal bhosdk pehli fursat mein

English only

Nikal bhosdk pehli fursat mein

what happened man.

Nikal BC pehli fursat mein

Its broken

is that english

is that english

(no)

Yup chutiye

He is sending a video lol

If we use a base class pointer to point to the base class object and call a virtual function using it. Then it would be late binding. But, will that be a run time polymorphism

If we use a base class pointer to point to the base class object and call a virtual function using it. Then it would be late binding. But, will that be a run time polymorphism

yes - virtual is "runtime polymorphism"

Now I know what it means

Now I know what it means

No. I didn't.

If we use a base class pointer to point to the base class object and call a virtual function using it. Then it would be late binding. But, will that be a run time polymorphism

Yes Because we now what we call only at runtime

So, what are the necessay conditions for run-time polymorphism

1. Inheritance 2. virtual functions in base class and what else?

Implementation of virtual functions in derived classes

1. Inheritance 2. virtual functions in base class 3. Overriding of the virtual function and anying else? I think using the base class pointer to point to its own object and its derived object also counts.

* I think using the base class pointer to point to its own object OR its derived object also counts.

1. Inheritance 2. virtual functions in base class 3. Overriding of the virtual function and anying else? I think using the base class pointer to point to its own object and its derived object also counts.

It's doesn't count It's not a condition, it's usage

So, can you provide an example with the top 3 holding true and not he last point that I mentioned.

So, can you provide an example with the top 3 holding true and not he last point that I mentioned.

I cannot Because it's not a condition for classes to be polymorphic It's the usage of polymorphism itseld

isn't there any other usage

goin' to sleep.

Whenever we have base *b = new Derived(); then if we call any non-virtual function as b->fun(), then at compile time it will run the fun() of base class due to Early Binding. If we make fun() as virtual then it will run the child class fun() due to RUN-time poly. Same is the case with destructor as well. So, we need to make destructor is virtual so that first the child class destructor is executed first. Is it completely correct Or do I need to add more. KINDLY REPLY!!

I think it's ok

/notes

/get best-book

/get great

/get

/notes

/notes

hi

hi

http://www.nohello.com/

#include<stdio.h> typedef struct demo{ int i; float f; char c; }demo; void main() { demo d; printf("%d",sizeof(d)); } Output is 12

#include<stdio.h> typedef struct demo{ int i; float f; char c[8]; }demo; void main() { demo d; printf("%d",sizeof(d)); } Output is 16

Why there is 12 output instead of 9

Why there is 12 output instead of 9

compiler are free to add additional bytes to pad the structure

How the additional bytes get added

Is there any relations to all??

Depends on your architecture and compiler settings. In many cases it's padded according to the biggest but at most to pointer size

compiler are free to add additional bytes to pad the structure

Means if we use double instead of int then the output will be 24 because it pads according to the highest byte I.e it pads all type as 8 byte ?

Means if we use double instead of int then the output will be 24 because it pads according to the highest byte I.e it pads all type as 8 byte ?

always depends on the compiler and setting. Many compiler try to align every member based on its size (at most pointer size) and the complete structure based on the biggest member (at most pointer size)

Cppreference.com

I've seen but I can't understand

always depends on the compiler and setting. Many compiler try to align every member based on its size (at most pointer size) and the complete structure based on the biggest member (at most pointer size)

Thnks

Does late binding occur when virtual function of derived class is called by object of derived class? Can we call it Run-time polymorphism too?

/saved

https://imgflip.com/i/36jmq7

Can you help me to learn C programming and data structures first to last ? please

Anyone!

That q is like finding mode in table

I'm little bit worried about the pain of reorganizing the existing projects after C++20

Hi

Hi

Hi

HI

I'm little bit worried about the pain of reorganizing the existing projects after C++20

Why?

Why?

Inclusion mechanism on codes takes too long to compile. And modules(C++20 features) do not. And there are like millions of software written in C++ and every one of them consist of (at least) thousand of lines. Devs have to rewrite their projects(and the legacy ones) to adapt modules, which takes too long. Or they have to stick with the painful long compilation time that is caused by the #include mechanism

It's a hard choice, I think

Where I can learn Python?

Where I can learn Python?

Not here

Where I can learn Python?

Obviously in a python group

Thanks. I have a good knowledge about c but don't know what is a python.

Does late binding occur when virtual function of derived class is called by object of derived class? Can we call it Run-time polymorphism too?

Yes

Thanks. I have a good knowledge about c but don't know what is a python.

And how well do you know C lang?

If I have a C function taking a pointer to a struct, can I supply a C++ struct to it? (Since they are different, I don't know). Thanks in advance.

If I have a C function taking a pointer to a struct, can I supply a C++ struct to it? (Since they are different, I don't know). Thanks in advance.

Wdym?

If I have a C function taking a pointer to a struct, can I supply a C++ struct to it? (Since they are different, I don't know). Thanks in advance.

I'm not sure, but I think that if the struct is passing std::is_pod criteria then it can be used in functions that expect a C struct. You can make a template wrapper function where you can check that. Or simply have an assert like this if it's only for one struct (so if someone adds something potentially unsafe, the code won't compile). static_assert(std::is_pod<ParamType>(), "ParamType should be pod type");

Because if it's not pod type, it can have some customized behavior that couldn't be expected in that C function (some custom copy constructor, can have pointer to the virtual table, etc.), and C function can just memcpy the struct or somehow manipulate its memory.

Any one pls solve f

Guys any one pls

Any one pls solve f

/warn Read the rules twice

It's a hard choice, I think

Okey. Thanks. I think what in 98 was better:))

I'm not sure, but I think that if the struct is passing std::is_pod criteria then it can be used in functions that expect a C struct. You can make a template wrapper function where you can check that. Or simply have an assert like this if it's only for one struct (so if someone adds something potentially unsafe, the code won't compile). static_assert(std::is_pod<ParamType>(), "ParamType should be pod type");

Thanls!

Hello group

Hello

Hello group

hi

#best-book

#cppbook

Hi there, anyone knows what's the most effective way to check undefined behavior?