¡@

Home 

c++ Programming Glossary: misunderstand

C++ deque's iterator invalidated after push_front()

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1658956/c-deques-iterator-invalidated-after-push-front

and I understand why all elements are moved. But I really misunderstand the phrase ...after push_back and push_front all references..

Why can't for_each modify its functor argument?

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2102056/why-cant-for-each-modify-its-functor-argument

in that way It seems much less useful. Or did I misunderstand something and my code below contains errors #include iostream..

Why is address zero used for null pointer?

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2759845/why-is-address-zero-used-for-null-pointer

it and hope that the community will correct me if I misunderstand. Like everything else in programming it's an abstraction. Just..

Inline member functions in C++

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/603390/inline-member-functions-in-c

to find that Thanks Edit since I've seen some people misunderstand what the question is I'd like to emphasize If the compiler decided..

Why is it undefined behavior to delete[] an array of derived objects via a base pointer?

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6171814/why-is-it-undefined-behavior-to-delete-an-array-of-derived-objects-via-a-base

D B B p new D 20 delete p undefined behaviour here Did I misunderstand the wording in the standard somehow Did I overlook something..

Disambiguator template keyword for a template member of a template: when exactly?

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6456636/disambiguator-template-keyword-for-a-template-member-of-a-template-when-exactly

small depart from the standard by those compilers or do I misunderstand something in the standard c templates share improve this..

“Observable behaviour” and compiler freedom to eliminate/transform pieces c++ code

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6664471/observable-behaviour-and-compiler-freedom-to-eliminate-transform-pieces-c-co

reading this discussion I realized that I almost totally misunderstand the matter As the description of C abstract machine is not rigorous..

Why does integer overflow on x86 with GCC cause an infinite loop?

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7682477/why-does-integer-overflow-on-x86-with-gcc-cause-an-infinite-loop

~ Desktop So the question is Is this a bug in GCC Or did I misunderstand something about how GCC handles integer arithmetic I'm tagging..