CppPatterns | The web front-end for C Patterns | Architecture library
kandi X-RAY | CppPatterns Summary
kandi X-RAY | CppPatterns Summary
The web front-end for C++ Patterns.
Support
Quality
Security
License
Reuse
Top functions reviewed by kandi - BETA
Currently covering the most popular Java, JavaScript and Python libraries. See a Sample of CppPatterns
CppPatterns Key Features
CppPatterns Examples and Code Snippets
Community Discussions
Trending Discussions on CppPatterns
QUESTION
I have followed this post: Class template SFINAE to instantiate the template class conditionally.
That works perfectly for the classes which have only one template parameters, as shown in the link above.
However, I have two (template)arguments, and I would like to do certain SFINE check. Following is a minimal example of my code.
...ANSWER
Answered 2019-May-03 at 08:21The problem is in the template specialization of MyClass. The specialization should be parameterized only on the two classes T
and U
, the test should be put in the declaration, as in the example below.
QUESTION
I am reading the pimpl code from github, and tried to compile in my macOS laptop as follows:
file: foo.cpp ...ANSWER
Answered 2018-Apr-02 at 09:12You're haven't added any of the code from foo.cpp
to your compiler. Compiling with clang++ -std=c+14 main.cpp foo.cpp -o main
should fix your problem.
QUESTION
The pimpl idiom, as far as I can tell, hides a private implementation behind a forward declared symbol name so it can be declared and used in the private cpp module.
Example: https://cpppatterns.com/patterns/pimpl.html
As far as I can tell, because the class hosint the pimpl needs to know about its structure (size, aligment), the pimpl must be indirect through a pointer of some sort.
(or allocated as a block of sufficient size then moved/created into the location where it is reinterpreted by cast later.)
Does the upcoming modules specification solve this in any way?
...ANSWER
Answered 2018-Feb-09 at 13:155.2.3 Exported Class PropertiesAn occasionally vexing rule of standard C++ is that of controls access, not visibil- ity. E.g. a private member of a class is visible to, but not accessible to non-member entities. In particular, any change to a private member of a class is likely to trigger e-processing of any translation unit that depends on that class’s definition even if the change does not affect the validity of dependent units. It is tempting to solve that problem with a module system. However, having two distinct sets of rules (visibility and accessibility) for class members strikes us as undesirable and poten- tially fertile source of confusion. Furthermore, we want to support mass-migration of existing codes to modules without programmers having to worry about class member name lookup rules: if you understand those rules today, then you do not have to learn new rules when you move to modules and you do not have to worry about how the classes you consume are provided (via modules or non-modules).
Rule 3 In general, any property of a class (e.g. completeness) that is computed in the export declaration part of a module is made available to importing modules as is.
As all properties of a class are visible to the importer, any change to those properties would be visible in the importer. I don't see modules solving the problem that PIMPL solves.
Community Discussions, Code Snippets contain sources that include Stack Exchange Network
Vulnerabilities
No vulnerabilities reported
Install CppPatterns
Support
Reuse Trending Solutions
Find, review, and download reusable Libraries, Code Snippets, Cloud APIs from over 650 million Knowledge Items
Find more librariesStay Updated
Subscribe to our newsletter for trending solutions and developer bootcamps
Share this Page