Comments by Joren Heit

Joren Heit 15-Jul-14 16:02pm View

Haha, wow... that's insane :P Nice one

Joren Heit 15-Jul-14 14:08pm View

I'm aware that CINT started as a C interpreter (hence the name), and that over time more and more C++ features have been added. By now, it supports templates, classes, inheritance, and much of the stuff that makes C++ C++. The fact that the language has been simplified to some extent does not mean it's not possible.

I must say I'm not at all familiar with C++/CLI (not a fan of platform specific languages; yes I know about Mono but let's be honest...), but in what way would the bytecode to be interpreted by the CLR be different from assembly code interpreted by a virtual x86 machine?

Joren Heit 30-Jun-14 7:53am View

Sure, always go with the non-portable solution.

Joren Heit 24-Jun-14 17:33pm View

Non-portable! Why not use STL when you can? See my answer :-)

Joren Heit 22-Jun-14 11:49am View

Sidenote: when applying inheritance to structs, the default is public. Of course you can derive a struct from a class and vice versa, in which case the default depends on the type inherited from.

Joren Heit 22-Jun-14 11:22am View

Can't you just run your program from the commandline instead of double-clicking the executable? This is how it works on linux...

Joren Heit 17-Jun-14 9:24am View

I thought it was clear that I'm aware of my comment being off-topic (that's why it's a comment). Just a tip to help you improve on your C++ vocabulary, take it or leave it! ;-)

Joren Heit 16-Jun-14 13:36pm View

Of course, but I tend to avoid auto outside complicated templates and/or very long nested types like iterators. Point is short enough to be written out explicitly :-)

Joren Heit 16-Jun-14 8:45am View

Completely off-topic, but still useful for you I hope. In C++, you don't need to declare access rights on every variable/function (unlike C#/Java). A class can have multiple private/public/protected regions, delimited by e.g. public:. Everything following this line will be publicly accessible. Furthermore, the members of a class are public by default, whereas the members of a struct are private by default. Therefore, if all your members are public anyway, you might as well put them in a struct (good habit arguments put aside).

Joren Heit 11-Jun-14 17:06pm View

+5, better solution than specializing the entire class! Was just about to post something similar myself, when I saw this.

Joren Heit 11-Jun-14 16:59pm View

Funny you should say that! I always found that reading right to left clarifies matters in C++ as well. For example:
int const *ptr is a pointer to a constant integer, whereas int *const ptr is a constant pointer to an int. This is why I always tell people to write const to the right of the thing that's constant. So no const int *ptr, even though it's perfectly valid and seen a lot...

Joren Heit 10-Jun-14 10:20am View

On a sidenote, there's no point in having bool const as a return type. Or any return by const value for that matter.

Joren Heit 10-Jun-14 9:53am View

Of course this will work, but why do you need a cast? Why not just have a function with a descriptive name that returns pointer (or even better, a reference) to the members you need?

EDIT: I posted an alternative solution below.

Comments by Joren Heit (Top 13 by date)