ptr | Python Test Runner was born to run tests | Unit Testing library

select() can set a timeout for the connection part.

Yes, but only if you put the socket into non-blocking mode before calling connect(), so that connect() exits immediately and then the code can use select() to wait for the socket to report when the connect operation has finished. But the code shown is not doing that.

setsockopt() with timeval can timeout the receiving portion of the code

Yes, though select() can also be used to timeout a read operation, as well. Simply call select() first, and then call recv() only if select() reports that the socket is readable (has pending data to read).

Try something like this:

The functions Hash_Inline and Hash_FunctionCall are not equivalent:

• The first statement in Hash_Inline rotates by 1, but in Hash_FunctionCall it rotates by curIndex.
• For RotateLeft you may have probably meant:

You wrongly used update command:

Yes. The standard defines "pseudo-destructor calls", so that something like ptr->~T() or ref.~T() is valid for built-in scalar types (§[expr.prim.id.dtor]):

1. An id-expression that denotes the destructor of a type T names the destructor of T if T is a class type (11.4.6), otherwise the id-expression is said to name a pseudo-destructor.
2. If the id-expression names a pseudo-destructor, T shall be a scalar type and the id-expression shall appear as the right operand of a class member access (7.6.1.4) that forms the postfix-expression of a function call (7.6.1.2). [Note: Such a call has no effect. —end note]

For better or worse, the same thing is not done for other operators that are valid on built-in scalar types, so (as you've found) you can't refer to some_int.operator=, for example).

There has been (considerable) discussion of some sort of uniform function call syntax, that would allow the compiler to sort out at least some things like this, but although it's been proposed at least a couple of times (early on by Francis Glassborrow, more recently by Bjarne and Herb Sutter), it hasn't been accepted. If you're interested in this apart from using it in C++, D does support something on this order you might find interesting to look into.

Outside of that, although it's not as easy as you'd probably like, you can probably use SFINAE to select between foo = bar; and foo.operator=(bar);, if you really need to do so (though I'll admit, I'm not sure what advantage you get from the .operator= syntax).

Objects in C++ often have destructors that need to run at the end of their lifetime. delete[] makes sure the destructors of each element of the array are called. But doing this has unspecified overhead, while delete does not. One for arrays, which pays the overhead and one for single objects which does not.

In order to only have one version, an implementation would need a mechanism for tracking extra information about every pointer. But one of the founding principles of C++ is that the user shouldn't be forced to pay a cost that they don't absolutely have to.

Always delete what you new and always delete[] what you new[]. But in modern C++, new and new[] are generally not used anymore. Use std::make_unique, std::make_shared, std::vector or other more expressive and safer alternatives.

The size of a pointer is constant. It doesn't depend on the size of the structure it points to.

For additional information on the size of pointers, take a look here

Here's one possible syntax

there is nothing wrong with this code, all the memory allocated on the heap is free'd, whether you delete ptr or x but not both. Both pointers point to the same address in memory so this is entirely okay; it is safe bet to set free'd pointers = 0 as well!