8 ms·
C++ Annotations
- DrTung 8y agoGood read but class template argument deduction is not mentioned.
- danieldk 8y agoIf you are in the Groningen region for a longer period, I can highly recommended taking Frank Brokken's C++ course [1]. I took the course over ten years ago and benefitted from it many years thereafter. He is also a great and very entertaining lecturer. [1] he is the writer of the C++ annotations.
- tomcam 8y agoThis is a treasure. Dipping back into C++ after a couple decades makes this document pretty much essential.
- Koshkin 8y agoA nice detailed overview of C++ (not sure why it's titled "annotations", though).
- copperx 8y agoHow is the accuracy and recency of this manual compared to Stroustrup's A Tour of C++? Has anyone here read both?
- kbumsik 8y agoHere is his Gitlab [1]. Looking at the history at least he maintains the book very actively for years. [1] https://gitlab.com/fbb-git/cppannotations/commits/master https://gitlab.com/fbb-git/cppannotations/commits/master
- kbenson 8y agoIt's becoming increasingly hard to gather any useful information about software development topic from a concise title because rampant terminology growth and (sometimes fueled by reuse of concepts with different terminology in different projects) to the point that concise titles are almost always ambiguous in some manner. For example, I've seen this submission for hours now, and every time I assumed it was sort of function annotation/decorator syntax addition to achieve some interesting result, which didn't pique my interest at those times. Is any other field quite as bad with this as software development seems to be?
- oddity 8y agoThis seems to be a particularly extreme case of unconventional terminology usage, but on the whole, the phenomenon you describe is the inevitable consequence of trying to be concise while also not inventing words. The information density of the existing language just can’t handle the depth of all the fields we try to use it for without inventing terminology. Off the top of my head, I would claim that any large subfield of mathematics is probably as bad, if not worse, than software development (see: all the words used to describe “a collection of things”). I would expect this to be true for any sufficiently developed field of study.
- oh_sigh 8y agoThe first sentence of the link may be enlightening. Instead of puzzling over it, why not just clicm the link and take a peek? > This document is intended for knowledgeable users of C (or any other language using a C-like grammar, like Perl or Java) who would like to know more about, or make the transition to, C++
- objektif 8y agoAs a previous C++ and current python dev I am not surprised to see 24 chapters on decorators in C++. (Joking ofcourse)
- cjensen 8y agoSo I immediately checked my favorite language gotcha, the macro NULL. The text is entirely wrong. The macro NULL is harmful in both C and C++. It is not "stylistic" AT ALL. Here's the problem with the macro: the macro NULL can be either 0 or can be (void * ) 0. The issue is that the former can be accidentally interpreted as an integer depending on context. In both C and C++, this manifests when you pass NULL to a varargs function. Instead of passing in a null pointer, the compiler may instead pass in an integer zero. If pointers and ints have different sizes, hilarity ensues. If the null pointer does not have the same bit representation as int zero, hilarity ensues. In C++, this happens even more commonly. If there is an operator overload and you pass in NULL, then if NULL is 0 it will chose the int overload, if NULL is (void * ) 0 it will chose a pointer overload. Never use NULL. Ever.
- cjs_2 8y agoWhat would you suggest using instead? The actual (void *) 0?
- CopperWing 8y agoIn C++, nullptr.
- cjs_2 8y agoAnd in C?
- craigching 8y agoIn C, always use 0 and check for 0, it's the only safe way. For C++, it depends on the standard you're using.
- guipsp 8y agoBut 0 isn't always null right?