Quick Q: How do I use std::tie and std::ignore? -- StackOverflow

By Blog Staff | May 2, 2013 01:13 PM | Tags: basics

How well do you know tie and ignore, especially to use the C++11 multiple return value idiom?

Please explain this code that uses std::ignore

I'm reading the documentation on std::ignore from cppreference. I find it quite hard to grasp the true purpose of this object, and the example code doesn't do it much justice. For example, in the below code, how and why is inserted set to true? It doesn't make much sense to me.

#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <set>
#include <tuple>

int main()
{
    std::set<std::string> set_of_str;
    bool inserted;
    std::tie(std::ignore, inserted) = set_of_str.insert("Test");
    if (inserted) {
        std::cout << "Value was inserted sucessfully\n";
    }
}

If someone can explain the code to me, it would be appreciated. Thanks.

Quick Q: Why does shared_ptr of void work? -- StackOverflow

By Blog Staff | May 2, 2013 11:16 AM | Tags: intermediate basics

Quick A: When it comes to destruction, only your deleter knows for sure... but he's captured at construction time, so all starts well and stays well.

Why do std::shared_ptr<void> work

I found some code using std::shared_ptr to perform arbitrary cleanup at shutdown. At first I thought this code could not possibly work, but then I tried the following:

[edited]

int main() {
  vector<shared_ptr<void>> v;
  {
    v.push_back( shared_ptr<test>( new test() ) );
  }
} // [[ how can this destroy type-safely? ]]

Quick Q: Does [=] capture all variables in scope? -- StackOverflow

By Blog Staff | May 2, 2013 04:45 AM | Tags: basics

Quick A: No.

A simple but important question:

C++11 lambda capture semantics

When I use [=] to indicate that I would like all local variables to be captured by value in a lambda, will that result in all local variables in the function being copied, or just all local variables that are used by the lambda?

So, for example, if I have:

vector<int> my_huge_vector(100000);
int my_measly_int;
some_function([=](int i){ return my_measly_int + i; });

Will my_huge_vector be copied, even though I don't use it in the lambda?

Quick Q: static constexpr variable vs. constexpr function? -- StackOverflow

By Blog Staff | May 1, 2013 04:39 PM | Tags: intermediate basics

With a nice Quick A by Morwenn that not only gives the right answer as of today, but is current with a feature voted into C++14 just two weeks ago that lets you drop the ()'s:

static constexpr variable vs. function

Is there a difference between declaring floating point constant as a static constexpr variable and a function as in example below, or is it just a matter of style?

class MY_PI
{
public:
    static constexpr float MY_PI_VAR = 3.14f;
    static constexpr float MY_PI_FUN() { return 3.14f; }
}

Functional Patterns in C++ -- Bartosz Milewski

By Blog Staff | May 1, 2013 12:11 PM | Tags: advanced

If you're familiar with functional language styles and you want an advanced look at how your favorite functional styles are supported in modern C++, with a dash of Haskell, check out these three videos by Bartosz Milewski:

Functional Patterns in C++ (slides)

by Bartosz Milewski

Part 1, Functors: First the introduction to some common functional patterns like Functor, which, surprisingly pops up everywhere. I'll show the example of a unique_ptr and a vector as Functors. Of course, this is only in preparation for asynchronous functors.

Part 2, Currying, Applicative: A little digression to Haskell and the Maybe functor and the explanation of currying. Then I'll show you the Applicative Functor pattern. This is, of course, in preparation for for the asynchronous applicative functor pattern.

Part 3, Asynchronous API, Monoid, Monad: The encapsulation of asynchronous API that doesn't lead to inversion of control and spaghetti code. Very natural example of a Monad Pattern.

Slides (parts 1-3)

Interestingly, Bartosz' talk ends with a plea for (essentially) future.then and a C#-style await... both of which are under active consideration in the C++ standards committee as part of a potential near-term C++ technical specification on concurrency and parallelism.