Why there is no `static_if` in C++11 [closed] - c++

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I wonder why such a natural thing like static_if did not manage to get into C++11? Some people object that using inheritance or template specialization we could achieve demanded results BUT:
Why don't we have a simple static_if for simple situations when one doesn't want to bloat up the source code with all that?

I suppose the commitee was short of time to discuss this feature so they decide to delay it after C++11. Anyway proposal is here: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3329.pdf

Related

How closely related are aspect-oriented programming to macros? [closed]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
I've heard the term 'aspect oriented programming' tossed around for a long time... I'm still confused... However, it seems to me that the general definition of an aspect is that you can take an existing program, annotate it using an 'aspect' of some sort and have it produce an additional behavior or something completely different. It kinda smells like a macro to me. I'm wondering if there are any similarities/differences as well as any informative links on this matter.

How to implement concepts in C++11 [closed]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Where do I get to see the concepts getting implemented strictly using C++11 language and library features?
I will prefer a simple library to start using it right away.

erlang vs golang [closed]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I intend to learn a new language for better concurrency.
Erlang is a old but powerful language with a runtime to support its whole concurrency system as well as a well-known library, OTP. This is more like JVM.
Go is another language good at concurrency, while it's more like C.
My major field is about C/S and B/S. What should I prefer?

Any good tutorial for Ocamlgraph? [closed]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I am not familiar with OCamlgraph library? I am not able to find any good documentation for the same? I am not able to run any small examples also. I want to find all cycles in graph for that I am using it.
Anyone aware of any documentation? Or a set of examples for the same?
There is the paper on ocamlgraph:
http://www.lri.fr/~filliatr/ftp/publis/ocamlgraph.ps
And aside from the examples on the ocamlgraph homepage, there is a more compact code example here:
How to visualize/draw automata in ocaml?

Which code is more readable? [closed]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
This isn't a difficult question. I simply want to know which of these two C++ code snippets you think is better (readability vs. length vs. boiler-platery):
Option #1
Entity* square = Entity::Builder().positionX(0.0).positionY(0.0).
controller(ctrl).representation(rep).build();
Option #2
Entity::Builder bld;
bld.positionX(0.0).positionY(0.0).controller(ctrl).representation(rep);
Entity* square = bld.build();
I personally prefer the first option, but that may be because I am the author of the code and already know what the code does (it may be confusing for someone who doesn't know the code). I like it better because it shows the focus on the Entity object rather than on the Entity::Builder object (and because it's shorter).
Option #3
Entity* square = Entity::Builder()
.positionX(0.0)
.positionY(0.0)
.controller(ctrl)
.representation(rep)
.build();