Search Results

Search found 2064 results on 83 pages for 'boost spirit lex'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 33/83 | < Previous Page | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >

  • C++ imitating ls like commands

    - by Arman
    Hi, How to implement the ls "filename_[0-5][3-4]?" like class? The result I would like to store in the vector. Currently I am using system() which is calling ls, but this is not portable under MS. thanks, Arman.

    Read the article

  • Wrapping allocated output parameters with a scoped_ptr/array

    - by Danra
    So, I have some code which looks like this: byte* ar; foo(ar) // Allocates a new[] byte array for ar ... delete[] ar; To make this safer, I used a scoped_array: byte* arRaw; scoped_array ar; foo(arRaw); ar.reset(arRaw); ... // No delete[] The question is, Is there any existing way to do this using just the scoped_array, without using a temporary raw array? I can probably write an in-place "resetter" class, just wondering if the functionality exists and I'm missing it. Thanks, Dan

    Read the article

  • Regular expression quantifier questions

    - by Josemalive
    Hello, Im trying to find a regular expression that matches this kind of URL: http://sub.domain.com/selector/F/13/K/100546/sampletext/654654/K/sampletext_sampletext.html and dont match this: http://sub.domain.com/selector/F/13/K/10546/sampletext/5987/K/sample/K/101/sample_text.html only if the number of /K/ is minimum 1 and maximum 2 (something with a quantifier like {1,2}) Until this moment i have the following regexp: http://sub\.domain\.com/selector/F/[0-9]{1,2}/[a-z0-9_-]+/ Now i would need a hand to add any kind of condition like: Match this if in the text appears the /K/ from 1 to 2 times at most. Thanks in advance. Best Regards. Josema

    Read the article

  • When should I use temporary variables?

    - by Kyle
    Specifically, I'm wondering which of these I should write: shared_ptr<GuiContextMenu> subMenu = items[j].subMenu.lock(); if (subMenu) subMenu->setVisible(false); or: if (items[j].subMenu.lock() items[j].subMenu.lock()->setVisible(false); I am not required to follow any style guidelines. After optimization, I don't think either choice makes a difference in performance. What is generally the preferred style and why?

    Read the article

  • Difference between BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE and BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE_FRACTION?

    - by Rhys Ulerich
    Can anyone describe the difference in behavior between BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE and BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE_FRACTION? The documentation implies the that both macros treat their third parameter identically, which makes me suspect the documentation is wrong. In particular, BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE_FRACTION gives me some odd looking results: error in "...": difference between *expected{0} and *actual{-1.7763568394002506e-16} exceeds 9.9999999999999995e-07 Is there a gotcha because I expect a zero result? I've not been successful at reading through the underlying macro declarations. Please note BOOST_CHECK_SMALL isn't appropriate for my use case (comparing two vectors after a linear algebra operation).

    Read the article

  • Some clarification needed about synchronous versus asynchronous asio operations

    - by Old newbie
    As far as I know, the main difference between synchronous and asynchronous operations. I.e. write() or read() vs async_write() and async_read() is that the former, don't return until the operation finish -or error-, and the last ones, returns inmediately. Due the fact that the asynchronous operations are controlled by an io_service.run() that does not finish until the controlled operations has finalized. It seems to me that in sequencial operations as those involved in TCP/IP connections with protocols such as POP3, in which the operaton is a sequence such as: C: <connect> S: Ok. C: User... S: Ok. C: Password S: Ok. C: Command S: answer C: Command S: answer ... C: bye S: <close> The difference between synchronous/asynchronous opperatons does not make much sense. Of course, in both operations there is allways the risk that the program flow stops indefinitely by some circunstance -there the use of timers-, but I would like know some more authorized opinions in this matter. I must admit that the question is rather ill-defined, but I like hear some advices about when use one or other, because I've problems in debugging with MS Visual Studio, asynchronous SSL operations in a POP3 client in wich I'm working now -about some of who surely I would write here soon-, and sometimes think that perhaps is a bad idea use asynchronous in this. Not to say that I'm an absolute newbie with this librarys, that additionally to the difficult with the idioma, and some obscure concepts in the STL, must suffer the brevity of the asio documentation.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to generate a .h macros file from bjam?

    - by Gnurou
    I need to dynamically generate some macros into a .h configuration file that C programs can include in order to check which options are enabled, in a fashion similar to what is possible with CMake's CONFIGURE_FILE macro. But after looking in the doc and the web, I could not find something useful. Is it possible to generate such a file from bjam and have the dependencies handled correctly? If so, how would you do it?

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing Private Method in Resource Managing Class (C++)

    - by BillyONeal
    I previously asked this question under another name but deleted it because I didn't explain it very well. Let's say I have a class which manages a file. Let's say that this class treats the file as having a specific file format, and contains methods to perform operations on this file: class Foo { std::wstring fileName_; public: Foo(const std::wstring& fileName) : fileName_(fileName) { //Construct a Foo here. }; int getChecksum() { //Open the file and read some part of it //Long method to figure out what checksum it is. //Return the checksum. } }; Let's say I'd like to be able to unit test the part of this class that calculates the checksum. Unit testing the parts of the class that load in the file and such is impractical, because to test every part of the getChecksum() method I might need to construct 40 or 50 files! Now lets say I'd like to reuse the checksum method elsewhere in the class. I extract the method so that it now looks like this: class Foo { std::wstring fileName_; static int calculateChecksum(const std::vector<unsigned char> &fileBytes) { //Long method to figure out what checksum it is. } public: Foo(const std::wstring& fileName) : fileName_(fileName) { //Construct a Foo here. }; int getChecksum() { //Open the file and read some part of it return calculateChecksum( something ); } void modifyThisFileSomehow() { //Perform modification int newChecksum = calculateChecksum( something ); //Apply the newChecksum to the file } }; Now I'd like to unit test the calculateChecksum() method because it's easy to test and complicated, and I don't care about unit testing getChecksum() because it's simple and very difficult to test. But I can't test calculateChecksum() directly because it is private. Does anyone know of a solution to this problem?

    Read the article

  • recursive_directory_iterator exception

    - by Jon
    I'm writing a simple program which moves files on my desktop to new location. I don't understand why it crashes after the file has been moved. for(recursive_directory_iterator it(desktop), end; it != end; ++it) { if(it->path().leaf() == fileToMove) { rename(*it, newPath); } } A point in the right direction would be appropriated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What's the performance penalty of weak_ptr?

    - by Kornel Kisielewicz
    I'm currently designing a object structure for a game, and the most natural organization in my case became a tree. Being a great fan of smart pointers I use shared_ptr's exclusively. However, in this case, the children in the tree will need access to it's parent (example -- beings on map need to be able to access map data -- ergo the data of their parents. The direction of owning is of course that a map owns it's beings, so holds shared pointers to them. To access the map data from within a being we however need a pointer to the parent -- the smart pointer way is to use a reference, ergo a weak_ptr. However, I once read that locking a weak_ptr is a expensive operation -- maybe that's not true anymore -- but considering that the weak_ptr will be locked very often, I'm concerned that this design is doomed with poor performance. Hence the question: What is the performance penalty of locking a weak_ptr? How significant is it?

    Read the article

  • Micro Second resolution timestamps on windows.

    - by Nikhil
    How to get micro second resolution timestamps on windows? I am loking for something better than QueryPerformanceCounter, QueryPerformanceFrequency (these can only give you an elapsed time since boot, and are not necessarily accurate if they are called on different threads - ie QueryPerformanceCounter may return different results on different CPUs. There are also some processors that adjust their frequency for power saving, which apparently isn't always reflected in their QueryPerformanceFrequency result.) There is this, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163996.aspx but it does not seem to be solid. This looks great but its not available for download any more. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/i-seconds/ This is another resource. http://www.lochan.org/2005/keith-cl/useful/win32time.html But requires a number of steps, running a helper program plus some init stuff also, I am not sure if it works on multiple CPUs Also looked at the Wikipedia link on the subject which is interesting but not that useful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Stamp_Counter If the answer is just do this with BSD or Linux, its a lot easier thats fine, but I would like to confirm this and get some explanation as to why this is so hard in windows and so easy in linux and bsd. Its the same damm hardware...

    Read the article

  • For distributed applications, which to use, ASIO vs. MPI?

    - by Rhubarb
    I am a bit confused about this. If you're building a distributed application, which in some cases may perform parallel operations (although not necessarily mathematical), should you use ASIO or something like MPI? I take it MPI is a higher level than ASIO, but it's not clear where in the stack one would begin.

    Read the article

  • Building a dll with .lib files

    - by Manish Shukla
    I have a C++ project which is build via bjam. With 'install' rule in Jamroot i am able to create statically linked libraries (.lib files) for my project. My question is, how i can build a load-time DLL (or run-time DLL is also fine) with these .lib files? More Info: I am building my project with bjam in windows using msvc. When i tried compiling my project under visual C++ 2008, it complied and linked just fine but when i used bjam with msvc for compilation, it started giving linking errors and showing dependency from other project folders. Why was this behavior via bjam but not shown in vc++ UI.

    Read the article

  • C++ auto function return type implementation

    - by aaa
    hello. Is there macro, something like BOOST_AUTO, which would allow to emulate automatic return type deduction of function in C++? I mean something like trailing-return-type, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B0x#Alternative_function_syntax thank you

    Read the article

  • `enable_shared_from_this` has a non-virtual destructor

    - by Shtééf
    I have a pet project with which I experiment with new features of the upcoming C++0x standard. While I have experience with C, I'm fairly new to C++. To train myself into best practices, (besides reading a lot), I have enabled some strict compiler parameters (using GCC 4.4.1): -std=c++0x -Werror -Wall -Winline -Weffc++ -pedantic-errors This has worked fine for me. Until now, I have been able to resolve all obstacles. However, I have a need for enable_shared_from_this, and this is causing me problems. I get the following warning (error, in my case) when compiling my code (probably triggered by -Weffc++): base class ‘class std::enable_shared_from_this<Package>’ has a non-virtual destructor So basically, I'm a bit bugged by this implementation of enable_shared_from_this, because: A destructor of a class that is intended for subclassing should always be virtual, IMHO. The destructor is empty, why have it at all? I can't imagine anyone would want to delete their instance by reference to enable_shared_from_this. But I'm looking for ways to deal with this, so my question is really, is there a proper way to deal with this? And: am I correct in thinking that this destructor is bogus, or is there a real purpose to it?

    Read the article

  • C++: Binding to a base class

    - by Helltone
    The following code works, but I'm not sure it is correct/portable. #include <iostream> #include <tr1/functional> class base { public: base(int v) : x(v) {} protected: int x; }; class derived : public base { public: bool test() { return (x == 42); } }; int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { base b(42); if(std::tr1::bind((bool (base::*)()) &derived::test, b)()) { std::cout << "ok\n"; } return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Change Target of Edge in BGL

    - by Sunny
    If my BGL graph contain edge from node x to node y, and I want to change the target of this edge, so that now it's pointing from x to z, how it can be done? Are there any functions in BGL for that?

    Read the article

  • Modifying bundled properties from visitor

    - by ravenspoint
    How should I modify the bundled properties of a vertex from inside a visitor? I would like to use the simple method of sub-scripting the graph, but the graph parameter passed into the visitor is const, so compiler disallows changes. I can store a reference to the graph in the visitor, but this seems weird. /** A visitor which identifies vertices as leafs or trees */ class bfs_vis_leaf_finder:public default_bfs_visitor { public: /** Constructor @param[in] total reference to int variable to store total number of leaves @param[in] g reference to graph ( used to modify bundled properties ) */ bfs_vis_leaf_finder( int& total, graph_t& g ) : myTotal( total ), myGraph( g ) { myTotal = 0; } /** Called when the search finds a new vertex If the vertex has no children, it is a leaf and the total leaf count is incremented */ template <typename Vertex, typename Graph> void discover_vertex( Vertex u, Graph& g) { if( out_edges( u, g ).first == out_edges( u, g ).second ) { myTotal++; //g[u].myLevel = s3d::cV::leaf; myGraph[u].myLevel = s3d::cV::leaf; } else { //g[u].myLevel = s3d::cV::tree; myGraph[u].myLevel = s3d::cV::tree; } } int& myTotal; graph_t& myGraph; };

    Read the article

  • shared_ptr as class member

    - by idimba
    It's common to declared contained objects as a pointers to that class, while "forward declarating" them in header file. This in order to reduce physical dependencies in code. For example class B; // forward declaration class A { private: B* pB; }; Would it be good idea to declare such a member as shared_ptr, instead of naked pointer? I would prefer scoped_ptr, but AFAIKit it won't be in standard.

    Read the article

  • C++ associative array with arbitrary types for values

    - by Gerald Kaszuba
    What is the best way to have an associative array with arbitrary value types for each key in C++? Currently my plan is to create a "value" class with member variables of the types I will be expecting. For example: class Value { int iValue; Value(int v) { iValue = v; } std::string sValue; Value(std::string v) { sValue = v; } SomeClass *cValue; Value(SomeClass *v) { cValue = c; } }; std::map<std::string, Value> table; A downside with this is you have to know the type when accessing the "Value". i.e.: table["something"] = Value(5); SomeClass *s = table["something"].cValue; // broken pointer Also the more types that are put in Value, the more bloated the array will be. Any better suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Why timed lock doesnt throws a timeout exception in C++0x?

    - by Vicente Botet Escriba
    C++0x allows to lock on a mutex until a given time is reached, and return a boolean stating if the mutex has been locked or not. template <class Clock, class Duration> bool try_lock_until(const chrono::time_point<Clock, Duration>& abs_time); In some contexts, I consider an exceptional situation that the locking fails because of timeout. In this case an exception should be more appropriated. To make the difference a function lock_until could be used to get a timeout exception when the time is reached before locking. template <class Clock, class Duration> void lock_until(const chrono::time_point<Clock, Duration>& abs_time); Do you think that lock_until should be more adequate in some contexts? if yes, on which ones? If no, why try_lock_until will always be a better choice?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >