Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have started using strongly typed enums. Looking through my current project there are a few places were I still prefer plain enums.
If the strongly typed characteristic is unneeded and the enum is being used for its implicit conversion to int, are there any other tradeoffs that would make conventional enums a bad choice?
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 months ago.
Improve this question
I have a complicated C++ function that takes as input some files describing geometry and outputs some files describing resulting geometry. I'd like to provide an interface to this function on a webpage with the function being computed on a powerful computer. What are some good options that don't require me to rewrite the function in another language?
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Some libraries, such as LLVM, use a "superproject" pattern, where consumers of the library, such as libcxx, should live inside of the libraries' folder-structure. In the case of LLVM, this is llvm/projects.
This seems quite limiting, as it makes it harder use the library when there are other folder-structure constraints.
Why was this descision made, and what are some reasons to use such a layout?
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
To be honest (*this) looks a lot better than this->. They both function the same. Why shouldn't I use the former? Is it just common practice to use this->, or is there something more to it?
Actually both will have same results when accessing data-members. Though you find (*this) more elegant I would undoubtedly say most will disagree.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Is it good practice to encapsulate a structure used by a class inside the class if only the class uses it and not the user who will end up using the class, or does it not matter?
It is generally poor practice to expose any internal details in the headers.
See GotW #100: Compilation Firewalls for more details.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I am wondering if -Dfoobar the standard way for adding definition to the compiler for all the C++ compiler.
-Dfoobar works for all the compilers that have ever been used to compile Firefox, which is good enough for me. The Microsoft compilers also accept /Dfoobar, of course.