don't they just use LLVM nowadays?

[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] [6, 7, 8, 9, 10] [7, 8, 9, 10] [8, 9, 10] [9, 10] [10] i got this from the code as expected. this is not the set of all subsets

don't they just use LLVM nowadays?

Strange. Later I will see it

C++ Builder is not Borland C++, Borland C++ use to use OWL classes, C++ Builder is based on Delhi.

It's Borland Compiler a good option for C/C++? Get me your opinion about that.

don't they just use LLVM nowadays?

What does this mean? I know what | and « mean, but why would you write something like this?

getc() reads a character from a file. This code snippet shows it reads 2 characters and uses | and << to convert them to be a short value.

I mean why is | necessary ?

It concatenates two one byte values in one two bytes value

I think I'm confused

imagine you read first value 0xAB second value 0xCD then to concatenate them into a two byte value you would do the next shift the second one 8 bits left 0xCD << 8 that would result in 0xCD00 then merge them together 0xAB | 0xCD00 that will result in 0xCDAB where | - is bitwise OR

wouldn't it be the opposite? 0xCD >> 8 then? 0xABCD

0xAB << 8 then

(0xAB << 8) | 0xCD => 0xABCD parentheses because I'm not sure about the precedence

So, I see you wrote it little-endian, but actually speaking, isn't big-endian just more intuitive? I mean, why would we read the numbers in the opposite direction?

that was juat an example, I didn't mean reading from right to left

So, I see you wrote it little-endian, but actually speaking, isn't big-endian just more intuitive? I mean, why would we read the numbers in the opposite direction?

I think I got your point. You mean, if the value is 0xAB 0xCD, the code should be 0xAB « 8 | 0xCD. However, the code snippet you gave is opposite. Am I correct?

I see many times data dumped little-endian but is there a reason for choosing it instead of big-endian?

you should choose whatever you target architecture is using (generally to make less byte swaps when implementing serialization/deserialization)

why? Isn't it the same thing? Doesn't it just change shift direction?

yes.

I think it may relate to Operator Precedence. https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/operator_precedence However, I will not write code like this...

hello, everyone. is it allowed here to ask some newbie questions?

whats the logic here, how do i approach

which one is more popular: camelCase or underscore_case ?

which one is more popular: camelCase or underscore_case ?

Rust uses both

Where does it use camelCase?

Isn't PascalCase just another name to camelCase?

Isn't PascalCase just another name to camelCase?

i mean which one to choose as a beginner so that it will become a nice habit?

What ever you find it nice, thing to consider - snake is really readable, but its easily run out of column. - camel is solve the column space but is not really readable as snale.

Readability is individual, after working a while with camelCase it's becoming almost the same readable as snake case (maybe except for issues with I/l, O/0 sometimes)

It's a bad idea to overuse static_cast because of code-bloat, right?

https://twitter.com/AffectiveCpp/status/1247121481064210432?s=09