¡@
c++ Programming Glossary: philosophyUsing enum in loops and value consistency http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13971544/using-enum-in-loops-and-value-consistency e.g. 100 for X above is simply in keeping with the general philosophy inherited from C it's better to be fast than to be correct...
Why don't STL containers have virtual destructors? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1647298/why-dont-stl-containers-have-virtual-destructors share improve this question I guess it follows the C philosophy of not paying for features that you don't use. Depending on..
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1668259/stl-or-qt-containers not available unless you use TR1 The QTL has a different philosophy from the STL which is well summarized by J. Blanchette Whereas..
Why should exceptions be used conservatively? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1744070/why-should-exceptions-be-used-conservatively Why is it unwise to use them for control flow What is the philosophy behind being exceptionally conservative with how they are used..
Static variable initialization? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1831290/static-variable-initialization zero it but that would incur a runtime overhead. The C philosophy is you don't pay for things you don't use so it doesn't zero..
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1989819/theory-on-error-handling that I should design my application according to a certain philosophy a school of thought that provides a strong foundation to build..
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/199627/converting-c-source-to-c written with the C is nothing but C with smart struct s philosophy I would suggest using the same strategy you'd use to eat an..
So can unique_ptr be used safely in stl collections? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2876641/so-can-unique-ptr-be-used-safely-in-stl-collections collections I am confused with unique_ptr and rvalue move philosophy. Let's say we have two collections std vector std auto_ptr int.. improve this question I think it's more a question of philosophy than technic The underlying question is what is the difference..
What is the philosophy of managing memory in C++? [closed] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3681455/what-is-the-philosophy-of-managing-memory-in-c is the philosophy of managing memory in C closed Apologies for the vast scope.. I know I am being a bit naive but what is the design philosophy of memory management in C with respect to classes structs methods..
smart pointers + “this” considered harmful? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/382166/smart-pointers-this-considered-harmful pointers such as boost shared_ptr what is a good design philosophy regarding use of this Consider that It's dangerous to store..
In either C or C++, should I check pointer parameters against NULL/nullptr? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4390007/in-either-c-or-c-should-i-check-pointer-parameters-against-null-nullptr was inspired by this answer . I've always been of the philosophy that the callee is never responsible when the caller does something..
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4467142/why-is-explicit-allowed-for-default-constructors-and-constructors-with-2-or-more list can be used to initialize a class object. The philosophy is if you use ... then you initialize the object with a sort..
How to implement the factory pattern in C++ correctly http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5120768/how-to-implement-the-factory-pattern-in-c-correctly users of those platforms like to write clean OOP. Anyway philosophy aside In the general case I don't want to force the users of..
Is there an implicit default constructor in C++? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/563221/is-there-an-implicit-default-constructor-in-c but the default action is to do nothing in the vane of C philosophy we do not want to pay for something unless we explicitly ask..
Why does (i|o)fstream take a const char* parameter for a file name? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5972151/why-does-iofstream-take-a-const-char-parameter-for-a-file-name be reserved to C code. In general case this is a bogus philosophy. Gratuitous use of comparatively heavy objects like std string..
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 is used on not. In my opinion this doesn't fit with the C philosophy of not paying for what you don't use. But worse a polymorphic.. for those legitimate uses which is in line with the philosophy of C . if on the other hand an array with polymorphic behaviour..
Are there any specific reasons to use non-virtual destructors? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8697866/are-there-any-specific-reasons-to-use-non-virtual-destructors at the destruction time. In the end it is a matter of philosophy. Where practical C opts for performance and minimal service..
|