i just tried - even doing chmod +R a+rwx for the whole parent directory doesn't seem to make it work

(it did work - and i'm sure the path + its permission has no issue...)

It's like.. misleading? Since you have a reference, you can easily forget to free the memory. And.. eh.. smart pointers?

Since you have allocated memory, you can easily forget to free it! L == logic!

Since you have allocated memory, you can easily forget to free it! L == logic!

Ok Managing a memory yourself is a bad practice in modern C++ for 99% cases, no? RAII, smart pointers, that's kind of stuff

declaration of variable of type "reference to int" and initialization of it by reference to dynamically created object of type int which is initialized to value 2.

Yeah but i was thinking that in that case expression should look like this int &j = new int(2); Since new returns address of the newly created object. Thing that is confusing is this * before new. Shouldn't * means access to variable on following addres?

Yeah but i was thinking that in that case expression should look like this int &j = new int(2); Since new returns address of the newly created object. Thing that is confusing is this * before new. Shouldn't * means access to variable on following addres?

NO, here = could not be used because of different types. int &j -- needs reference to int new int(2) -- is pointer to int

Yeah but i was thinking that in that case expression should look like this int &j = new int(2); Since new returns address of the newly created object. Thing that is confusing is this * before new. Shouldn't * means access to variable on following addres?

Dereferencing a pointer giving you a reference to the memory the pointer points to

Yeah but i was thinking that in that case expression should look like this int &j = new int(2); Since new returns address of the newly created object. Thing that is confusing is this * before new. Shouldn't * means access to variable on following addres?

Shouldn't * means access to variable on following addres? -- yes, this is what it exactly means here. Nothing confusing.

@MasterZiv Thank u for clarification! We finally got it. It is possible that reference accept object and not its address, that is why there is * to new cuz new returns address. God bless you!

@MasterZiv Thank u for clarification! We finally got it. It is possible that reference accept object and not its address, that is why there is * to new cuz new returns address. God bless you!

👌

Whats the best way to draw a quad in openGL?

Like the vertex positions

https://img.kingdev.nl/NVIDIA%20Share_2019-10-30_16-11-04.png

Like the vertex positions

two trianges

I don't think the way im doing it is suposed to be the correct one

first b stand for back, second is for bottom or top

Whats the best way to draw a quad in openGL?

Let other people draw it.

/warn

sorry

Plzz anyone send e book of c++

I cant search online

http://www.cppreference.com/ http://www.cplusplus.com/

Is that math or programming?

It’s programming c++

I have two versions of C++ primer, Chinese edition and English edition.

I have two versions of C++ primer, Chinese edition and English edition.

English please

I have two versions of C++ primer, Chinese edition and English edition.

I mean English edition please i want English edition

It’s programming c++

How do you want to write analytycal solution of your task?

I mean English edition please i want English edition

libgen.is

libgen.is

It isn't working

Works here

I mean English edition please i want English edition

If you really need, I'll send you tomorrow. It's middle night in China right now. Plus, I am going to sleep.

If you really need, I'll send you tomorrow. It's middle night in China right now. Plus, I am going to sleep.

Ok

I mean English edition please i want English edition

#googleit

Hi friends

hello friends

hi

Hello

struct TEST { char x[3]; TEST(char p1, char p2, char p3) : x({p1,p2,p3})

it this okay?

its x{p1, p2, p3} not x({p1, p2, p3})

its x{p1, p2, p3} not x({p1, p2, p3})

Thank you very much 👍

Hi, I'm finding some examples from google but can't find one - for decrypting an encrypted string with RSA (key pairs + passphrase) with openssl

are you able to point me to some example code?

thanks!

🙄

🙄

?

I have some troubles understanding why this code doesn't compile. https://ideone.com/Tgah7B If I call test1 instead of test2 or in test2 just return the result of test1 (without introducing a local variable), then it compiles fine.

It says error: ‘a’ is not a constant expression but that doesn't seem to be a problem in case without variable b and in case of test1 where a has the same type.

It says error: ‘a’ is not a constant expression but that doesn't seem to be a problem in case without variable b and in case of test1 where a has the same type.

In c/c++ your case statements in the switch block should be resolved to a constant value, as the code makes branch decisions on it. If you need a variable case statement you can use another switch statement at that position. Try to keep the complexity in the code down for all involved 😏

Hey some one help me Plzz send me ebook of c++programming.

http://www.cppreference.com/ http://www.cplusplus.com/

.

lol

In c/c++ your case statements in the switch block should be resolved to a constant value, as the code makes branch decisions on it. If you need a variable case statement you can use another switch statement at that position. Try to keep the complexity in the code down for all involved 😏

Not sure if I understand what case statements you're talking about, can you clarify please

Not sure if I understand what case statements you're talking about, can you clarify please

I think he is about case <constant>:

In c/c++ your case statements in the switch block should be resolved to a constant value, as the code makes branch decisions on it. If you need a variable case statement you can use another switch statement at that position. Try to keep the complexity in the code down for all involved 😏

He has no switch

Hey some one help me Plzz send me ebook of c++programming.

wrong group to ask

Basically to rephrase the problem (code is still here https://ideone.com/Tgah7B) I have a constexpr string hashing function and I want to have another constexpr function that wraps this function and does some static_asserts on the hash value before returning it. But if I introduce a local variable with the resulting hash (b) in the second function it stops compiling with error "error: ‘a’ is not a constant expression". And I can't understand why, because a is the same in both cases.

It says error: ‘a’ is not a constant expression but that doesn't seem to be a problem in case without variable b and in case of test1 where a has the same type.

Looking at the code this time and not at the message - your "test" code is unresolved at "compile time" that is what constexpr implies. Not at a laptop right now, try to define the "int test = 6;" or "const int test = 6;"

Understanding constexpr specifier in C++ - GeeksforGeeks https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/understanding-constexper-specifier-in-c/

The int test MUST be global, must be constant. If it is in text format you MUST eval it to a c++ expression

Hey some one help me Plzz send me ebook of c++programming.

#googleit

I have some troubles understanding why this code doesn't compile. https://ideone.com/Tgah7B If I call test1 instead of test2 or in test2 just return the result of test1 (without introducing a local variable), then it compiles fine.

Ok, seems like I can't create a constexpr variables in this case, because it makes no sense for the compiler (the function itself is constexpr, so constexpr local variable would mean that it should be precalculated for all the function variants at once, but it's dependent on a parameter). So the error was correct I just needed to think deeper. I replaced it to const and it started to compile. But it turned out that I can't use static_assert for such variables, so I found a working solution for it here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50160057/cleanly-report-compile-time-error-from-constexpr-without-exceptions The resulting code that seem to work fine (but I will need to find an analogue for Windows): https://ideone.com/JpWyve

Hello guys i have one question. Probably need cpp expert. What does the following expression mean int &j= *new int(2); God bless you!

Stores a reference to a new allocated int array of 2 int

Hello guys i have one question. Probably need cpp expert. What does the following expression mean int &j= *new int(2); God bless you!

Probably not code that you should ever write btw

no it is not stupid.

Man, this calls to be a memory leak. One doesn't store a pair of manually allocated ints as a reference

Man, this calls to be a memory leak. One doesn't store a pair of manually allocated ints as a reference

No

No

"No" what? This code reeks of so much bad practice it makes me sick

"No" what? This code reeks of so much bad practice it makes me sick

No, this is code snippet you can't judge by this part if there is memory leak or not. Because this is only a part of the program

Hello guys i have one question. Probably need cpp expert. What does the following expression mean int &j= *new int(2); God bless you!

Are you about this code ?

No, this is code snippet you can't judge by this part if there is memory leak or not. Because this is only a part of the program

It is not a memory leak, I screams to become one. It makes no semantical sense, and all the alternatives to it look better and are more functional

Are you about this code ?

Yes

Yes

So, the piece of code is this: int &j= *new int(2);Why don't you like this? because it is stored not to a pointer to int but to reference to int ?

It is on the same level of cleverness as volatile int f() { return 4; }

It is on the same level of cleverness as volatile int f() { return 4; }

what is 'volative' ?

So, the piece of code is this: int &j= *new int(2);Why don't you like this? because it is stored not to a pointer to int but to reference to int ?

Yes that is very precisely why I don't like it, it makes no semantic sense

what is 'volative' ?

In this context? It does exactly nothing

But is valid C++

Who can Help with filesystem,with Reading Files,i'll send screen

In this context? It does exactly nothing

Probably you meant volatile ?

So, the piece of code is this: int &j= *new int(2);Why don't you like this? because it is stored not to a pointer to int but to reference to int ?

First, you abandon size information, unless you are good friend with your allocator, that may be semantically lost at compile time, then you abandon pointer semantics and typing which are precisely here to remind you need to clean that