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 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I remember a while ago I heard that there were thoughts of including a BigInteger implementation in the c++0x standard(as it was called back then). Apparently this did not happen but I was wondering if this is planned as part of c++1y or not.
The unbounded integer library is being worked on in SG6, the Numerics study group. It will probably go into a Technical Specification (TS, what used to be called a TR) once we sort out a few things about its interface and about interoperability of library numeric types.
The latest official paper on the subject is N3542. It is not slated for inclusion in C++14.
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 4 months ago.
Improve this question
I found this great answer from 12 years ago that explains the copy-and-swap idiom and how to implement it in C++11 and C++03.
My question is: is this still the recommended solution or has it changed in later versions of C++? (specifically I'm currently using C++20)
If you need safety and comfort over performance, it is still best solution. Howard Hinnant recommends you roll your own but only if you really really know how to do it and really really need the last ounce of performance.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Do the conventions in a programming language such as in C++ (such as extraction operator >> ) can be changed by a developer? Or is it restricted?
You're asking two questions here.
Who makes the C++ Standard?
The C++ Standards Committee
Can I change the behavior of an operator such as operator>>?
Yes, you can, via a capability defined in the standard. See:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/operators
What are the basic rules and idioms for operator overloading?
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 years ago.
Improve this question
The C++ committee is currently working on a Networking Technical Specification. I was wondering what were the biggest differences with boost::asio. Moreover, I heard several times that the udp implementation in boost::asio is not as efficient as it could be and I was wondering whether the TS tried to solve this problem.
The largest difference is that Networking TS has less stuff: no support for SSL, serial ports, OS signals and other OS-specific things. The TS is still designed to allow users of the library to add these features.
Also, the TSes usually don't delve into implementation details. So you should check with your STL implementation if it has problems you mentioned.
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
Why exactly has the LablGL and other commonly used utilities ceased to support the newest versions of Ocaml?
(4.0.3 cannot compile it due to the lack of camlp4 support)
Is there any reason other than loss of interest that they have ceased to be maintained?
And are there any alternatives that are available that work now?
I'm not sure what your problem is exactly doing an opam install lablgl with OCaml 4.01.0 works fine here.
That said if you are interested in a more direct and recent, but less safe, interface to OpenGL you can have a look at tgls.
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
Are there alternatives that would be more preferred?
Short-circuit evaluation is a crucial feature of most modern programming languages and there's no reason to avoid relying on it. Without it pointer-related tests would be (unnecessarily) much more complicated and less readable.
Of course it's good design, everyone knows to expect it and it beats using nested conditionals.