Oh, std::enable_if
is straight up worse, they’re unreadable and don’t work when two function overloads (idk about variables) have the same signature.
I’m not even sure enable_if can do something that constraints can’t at all…
Oh, std::enable_if
is straight up worse, they’re unreadable and don’t work when two function overloads (idk about variables) have the same signature.
I’m not even sure enable_if can do something that constraints can’t at all…
I imagine reflections would make the process more straightforward, requires expressions are powerful but either somewhat verbose or possibly incomplete.
For instance, in your example foo
could have any of the following declarations in a class:
void foo();
int foo() const;
template <typename T> foo(T = { }) &&;
decltype([]() { }) foo;
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking of. I don’t know how C++ could reasonably have Java-like reflections anyway…
Wouldn’t compilers be able to optimize runtime things out? I know that GCC does so for some basic RTTI things, when types are known at compile time.
I can see the footguns, but I can also see the huge QoL improvement - no more std::enable_if
spam to check if a class type has a member, if you can just check for them.
… at least I hope it would be less ugly than std::enable_if
.
Java²script
The joke has been lost because the drive’s technology is ill-suited for permament storage.
If only we had a hard drive…
Wdym? flamingo_pinyata’s explaination was quite useful, I wish somebody had told me that long ago and it’s still going to let me save so much time.
They lost their firstborn son in The War to untracked artillery because neither -i, -n, nor -f were given.
Of course Microsoft has to come out with this THE ONE TIME they’re not to blame for broken software…
Me, because I cannot understand how people can miss the facetiousness of this meme template with such confidence
Wh… what do you mean, “originally as a joke”?
III. We’ve Already Seen Extensive Gains From-
When I was younger, I read R.A Salvatore’s classic fantasy novel, The Crystal Shard. There is a scene in it where the young protagonist, Wulfgar, challenges a barbarian chieftain to a duel for control of the clan so that he can lead his people into a war that will save the world. The fight culminates with Wulfgar throwing away his weapon, grabbing the chief’s head with bare hands, and begging the chief to surrender so that he does not need to crush a skull like an egg and become a murderer.
Well this is me. Begging you. To stop lying. I don’t want to crush your skull, I really don’t.
Why would a car have a pet?
I didn’t get the first half, could you send it again?
I did find a wikipedia article to that, and it still seems legitimately more sensible than using Discord for any reason other than gaming-related peer pressure
I think you’re being a little unfair, communication via carrier pigeons is a valid solution as it outpaces IPv4/IPv6 carriers to this day
It’s not Discord, it’s some project that has a Discord community
Judging by Google’s chokehold over web browsers and websites in general, they’re not that different…
That is an extremely oddly specific cysec issue they’re choosing to target…