Home » Blog » Tags » basics

basics

Quick Q: Return a local object rvalue reference, right or wrong?

By Adrien Hamelin | Mar 11, 2015 01:54 PM | Tags: c++11 basics

Quick A: Wrong!

Recently on SO:

Return a local object rvalue reference,right or wrong?

I see once return a local object,the compiler will take the return value optimization.(RVO,NRVO).

The part of the Standard blessing the RVO goes on to say that if the conditions for the RVO are met, but compilers choose not to perform copy elision, the object being returned must be treated as an rvalue.


So we just write code like this:

Widget makeWidget()
{
Widget w;
…
return w;//never use std::move(w);
}

I never see somebody write code like this:

Widget&& makeWidget()
{
Widget w;
…
return std::move(w);
}

I know that returns an lvalue reference of local object is always wrong. So, returns an rvalue reference of local object is also wrong?

Secrets of the Conditional (ternary) Operator -- Alex Kulikov

By Blog Staff | Mar 7, 2015 06:06 PM | Tags: basics

Hot off kukuruku:

Secrets of the Conditional (ternary) Operator

by Alex Kulikov

(Note: Translation of the original Russian-language article here.)

From the article:

Every self-respecting C/C++ programmer knows what the ternary operator is, and most everyone used it at least once in their programs. But do you know all the secrets of the ternary operator? What potential dangers are associated with its use and what features, seemingly not related to its direct purpose, it has? This article gives you the opportunity to test your knowledge and maybe learn something new.

Let's start with a small test...

Quick Q: Why can a constexpr function return a non-constant?

By Adrien Hamelin | Mar 6, 2015 11:21 AM | Tags: c++11 basics

Quick A: Because constexpr means can be evaluated at compile time, not that it will be. And it won’t be if the inputs aren’t compile-time constants.

Recently on SO:

I am confused about a constexpr function?

In C++ Primer, Fifth Edition, §6.5.2:

A constexpr function is defined like any other function but must meet certain restrictions: The return type and the type of each parameter in must be a literal type (§2.4.4, p. 66), and the function body must contain exactly one return statement

but another sentence in this chapter (page 239):

A constexpr function is permitted to return a value that is not a constant

// scale(arg) is a constant expression if arg is a constant expression
constexpr size_t scale(size_t cnt) { return new_sz() * cnt; }

Is it a contradictory summary? I am confused about it.
The return type of scale is literal type?
update: what's the difference between literal type and constant ?

Quick Q: How to write variadic template constructor?

By Adrien Hamelin | Mar 5, 2015 10:44 AM | Tags: c++11 basics

Quick A: use an std::initializer_list.

Recently on SO:

Writting variadic template constructor

Recently I asked this question but now I would like to expand it. I wrote the following class:

template <class T>
class X{
public:
    vector<T> v;
    template <class T>
    X(T n) {
        v.push_back(n);
    }
    template <class T, class... T2>
    X(T n, T2... rest) {
        v.push_back(n);
        X(rest...);
    }
};

When creating and object using

X<int> obj(1, 2, 3);  // obj.v containts only 1

Vector only contains the first value, but not others. I've checked and saw that constructor is called 3 times, so I'm probably creating temp objects and filling their vectors with the rest of the arguments. How do I solve this problem?

Quick Q:How to modify a tuple in a vector of tuples c++?

By Adrien Hamelin | Mar 5, 2015 10:40 AM | Tags: c++11 basics

Quick A: Capture the tuple by reference.

Recently on SO:

Modifying a tuple in a vector of tuples c++

I have a vector of tuples vector<tuple<int,int>> vector; and I want to modify one of the tuples it contains.

for (std::tuple<int, int> tup : std::vector)
{
    if (get<0>(tup) == k)
    {
        /* change get<1>(tup) to a new value
         * and have that change shown in the vector
         */
    }
}

I am unsure how to change the value of the tuple and have the change be reflected in the vector. I have tried using

get<1>(tup) = v;

but that doesn't change the value of the tuple that is in the vector. How can I do this? Thanks.

How to write a standard-like algorithm -- Indi

By Marcin Hoppe | Mar 5, 2015 01:56 AM | Tags: basics

Explicit C++ has posted a nice tutorial on how to implement an algorithm in C++.

How to write a standard-like algorithm

by Indi

from the article:

Writing a standard-like algorithm should be one of the key parts of a modern C++ beginner’s course outline. This post will be a whirlwind guide through the steps toward creating a standard-like algorithm. The focus is not on the algorithm itself, but on the process of creating one.

Operator Overloading – Introduction to Boost.Operators -- Arne Metz

By Felix Petriconi | Feb 27, 2015 12:45 AM | Tags: boost basics

Arne Mertz goes into the details of using boost operators.

Operator Overloading – Introduction to Boost.Operators, Part 1

Operator Overloading – Introduction to Boost.Operators, Part 2

by Arne Mertz

From the articles:

In my first two posts about operator overloading I have written about the basics and common practice. This post shows some lessons from the common practice post on a concrete example and then introduces to Boost.Operators, a library that conveniently reduces the boilerplate involved when overloading multiple operators for a class.

Operators Travel in Packs

If we look at the list of operators, we see that there are about 50 of them, and many of them can be overloaded in different ways. Even if we restrict ourselves to a few operations that make sense for a given class, then one of those operations often brings two or more operators.

 

Type Deduction and Braced Initializers--Arne Mertz

By Adrien Hamelin | Feb 23, 2015 02:39 PM | Tags: c++11 basics

If you are confused about the topic, read this article:

Type Deduction and Braced Initializers

by Arne Mertz

From the article:

I just finished watching a talk from CppCon 2014 by Scott Meyers: Type Deduction and Why You Care. All in all it was a very interesting and entertaining talk, and I learned a thing or two, especially about the combination of type deduction and braced initializers. Since this blog is about simplifying the use of C++, I want to have a short look at that special combination and derive a rule of thumb from it...