February 10-15, Hagenberg, Austria
March 19-21, Madrid, Spain
April 1-4, Bristol, UK
June 16-21, Sofia, Bulgaria
By Blog Staff | Oct 27, 2014 10:35 AM | Tags: None
C++11: Let's Write a "Hello, Lambda!"
by Ovidiu Cucu
From the article:
... Getting rid of optional parts, we can make our program simpler, as follows:
// Example #2 #include <iostream> int main() { [] { std::cout << "Hello Lambda!"; } (); }Further, let’s take a little deeper look in the lambda introducer part...
By Blog Staff | Oct 27, 2014 10:27 AM | Tags: None
A new WG21 paper is available. If you are not a committee member, please use the comments section below or the std-proposals forum for public discussion.
Document number: N4250
Date: 2014-10-27
WG21 2014-10-24 Telecon Minutes
by Jonathan Wakely
By Meeting C++ | Oct 27, 2014 07:01 AM | Tags: standardization experimental
Two news in one: I used an old project on the weekend to have an alternative listing for the C++ Proposals:
An alternative listing for the C++ Proposals
This years C++ Proposals listed by mailing and subgroup
by Jens Weller
By Meeting C++ | Oct 25, 2014 01:59 AM | Tags: intermediate experimental c++17 c++ committee basics advanced
I've started with my series on the proposals for the next C++ Committee Meeting:
Urbana Proposals - C++17 insight?
by Jens Weller
From the article:
A short series to give you an overview over the Papers submitted in the latest mailing for the C++ Committee Meeting in Urbana-Champaign in Illinois. At the beginning of November the C++ Committee will have its 3rd Meeting this year. As C++14 is now finished, the focus is clearly on the upcoming C++17 standard.
By Blog Staff | Oct 24, 2014 01:00 AM | Tags: None
For your Friday reading pleasure, we recently came across one of the very earliest C++ standardization papers written, with number N0007 (or call it "007"):
C++: as close as possible to C -- but no closer
by Andrew Koenig and Bjarne Stroustrup
It's interesting too see how much C++ has stayed true to its root design. And the thesis and contents of this paper are both remarkably current, and to be considered by those who would attempt to C-ify C++, or C++-ify C.
From the paper:
ANSI C and the C subset of C++ serve subtly different purposes. ...
The purpose of this note is to summarize the remaining differences between the draft ANSI C standard and C++, explain their motivation, and point out cases where these differences are less important than they might appear at first.
By Fernando Pelliccioni | Oct 22, 2014 10:30 AM | Tags: None
Writing min function, part 4: Const-Correctness
by Fernando Pelliccioni
From the Article:
This is the fourth article of the series called “Writing min function”.
I still have to solve two mistakes made in the code of the previous posts. One of them is C++ specific, and the other it is a mistake that could be made in any programming language.
By Marco Arena | Oct 22, 2014 10:05 AM | Tags: None
The next meetup of ++it (italiancpp.org, the Italian C++ Community) will be in Bologna, Italy, on November 8th.
More details (in Italian) and registration (free) here.
By Blog Staff | Oct 22, 2014 04:52 AM | Tags: None
Recently on Codexpert, an enthusiastic and very readable reaction to two fresh standards proposals that will be considered two weeks from now at the ISO C++ meeting in Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA:
Extension methods in C++
by Marius Bancila
From the article:
... if
x.f(y)andf(x,y)were equivalent it would be very easy to write the above code like this:auto v = std::vector<int> {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}; auto s = v.where([](int e){return e % 2 == 0; }) .select([](int e){return e*e; }) .sum();Isn’t that beautiful? I think it is.
...
The N4174 paper is rather an exploration of possibilities for uniform calling syntax than a very formal proposal. There are various aspects that have to be carefully considered especially when considering how to treat
f(x, y). The N4165 paper makes a good case of the uniform calling syntax, explains the benefits better and argues against treatingf(x)equivalent tox.f(). You should go ahead and read the two papers for detailed information. However, I sincerely hope that one day this will be accepted and become a core feature of the C++ language.
By Blog Staff | Oct 21, 2014 10:47 AM | Tags: basics
Quick A: No, but unordered_map<string, unique_ptr<MyClass>>::erase and unordered_map<string, shared_ptr<MyClass>>::erase do.
Today on SO:
std::unordered_map<std::String, myClass*>-- doesstd::unordered_map::erase()callmyClass' DTor?Assume I have some
unordered_mapof pointers to class instances, would erasing an object from that map also delete the instance?(rewording the question:) If I wanted to delete that instance, which version would be right?
if(it != map.end()) { delete it->second; map.erase(it); }or simply
if(it != map.end()) map.erase(it);?
By Blog Staff | Oct 21, 2014 10:42 AM | Tags: None
It's not often we run a link to a SO article in the Product section, but this is a useful product question.
Alternative for PC-Lint supporting C++14 (Visual Studio 2013)
I am using PC-Lint for quite some time with very good results.
The last year however, I noticed that PC-Lint cannot keep up with the new C++ standards. E.g. range-based for-loops, variadic templates, make_unique, ... which are all constructions supported by Visual Studio 2013, aren't recognized by PC-Lint.
The result is that my code is now filled with lint-comments to disable checking on blocks of code using these constructions. This means:
- less readable code
- I'm almost spending more time updating my lint-comments that actually writing code
Is there an alternative (free or commercial) for PC-Lint on Windows that can keep up with the recent C++ standards?