Search Results

Search found 6460 results on 259 pages for 'cpp person'.

Page 71/259 | < Previous Page | 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78  | Next Page >

• Implementation of a C pre-processor in Python or JavaScript?

  - by grrussel

  Is there a known implementation of the C pre-processor tool implemented either in Python or JavaScript? I am looking for a way to robustly pre-process C (and C like) source code and want to be able to process, for example, conditional compilation and macros without invoking an external CPP tool or native code library. Another potential use case is pre-processing within a web application, within the web browser. So far, I have found implementations in Java, Perl, and of course, C and C again. It may be plausible to use one of the C to JavaScript compilers now becoming available. The PLY (Python Lex and Yacc) tools include a cpp implemented in Python.

  Read the article

• An exception to the "only one implementation" rule ?

  - by ereOn

  While I was reading the accepted answer of this question, I had the following question: Typically, methods are defined in header files (.hpp or whatever), and implementation in source files (.cpp or whatever). One of the main reasons it is bad practice to ever include a "source file" (#include <source_file.cpp>) is that its methods implementation would then be duplicated, resulting in linking errors. When one writes: #ifndef BRITNEYSPEARS_HPP #define BRITNEYSPEARS_HPP class BritneySpears { public: BritneySpears() {}; // Here the constructor has implementation. }; #endif /* BRITNEYSPEARS_HPP */ He is giving the implementation of the constructor (here an "empty" implementation, but still). But why then including this header file multiple times (aka. on different source files) will not generate a "duplicate definition" error at link time ?

  Read the article

• What am I missing in my compilation / linking stage of this C++ FreeType GLFW application?

  - by anon

  g++ -framework OpenGL GLFT_Font.cpp test.cpp -o test -Wall -pedantic -lglfw -lfreetype - pthread `freetype-config --cflags` Undefined symbols: "_GetEventKind", referenced from: __glfwKeyEventHandler in libglfw.a(macosx_window.o) __glfwMouseEventHandler in libglfw.a(macosx_window.o) __glfwWindowEventHandler in libglfw.a(macosx_window.o) "_ShowWindow", referenced from: __glfwPlatformOpenWindow in libglfw.a(macosx_window.o) "_MenuSelect", referenced from: This is on Mac OS X. I am trying to get GLFT_FONT to work on MacOSX with GLFW and FreeType2. This is not the standard Makefile. I changed parts of it myself (like the "-framework OpenGL" I am from Linux land, a bit new to Mac. I am on Mac OS X 10.5.8; using XCode 3.1.3 Thanks!

  Read the article

• Preprocessor Conditionals

  - by Mike

  I was wondering if it would be possible to have a define which changes values at some point in the code be used in a conditional. Basically something like this: //////////////////////////////////////////// SomeFile.cpp #define SHUTDOWN false while(window->isOpen()) { if(SHUTDOWN) window->close(); // Rest of the main loop } //////////////////////////////////////////// SomeOtherFile.cpp if(Escape.isPressed()) { #undef SHUTDOWN #define SHUTDOWN true } Thus causing the app to close. If it's not, would having a function like RenderWindow* getWindow() { return window; } and then calling if(Escape.isPressed()) getWindow()->close(); The best way to do it? I'd rather not go that route because the classes that are calling the key event are members of the class controlling the main loop and the window, so I'd have to set pointers to the containing class in the smaller classes to call getWindow() and it just seems like a more complicated method. But if I can't do it with preprocessor directives I'll just have to use pointers to the parent class.

  Read the article

• Quick, Beginner C++ Overloading Question - Getting the compiler to perceive << is defined for a spec

  - by Francisco P.

  Hello everyone. I edited a post of mine so I coul I overloaded << for a class, Score (defined in score.h), in score.cpp. ostream& operator<< (ostream & os, const Score & right) { os << right.getPoints() << " " << right.scoreGetName(); return os; } (getPoints fetches an int attribute, getName a string one) I get this compiling error for a test in main(), contained in main.cpp binary '<<' : no operator found which takes a right-hand operand of type 'Score' (or there is no acceptable conversion) How come the compiler doesn't 'recognize' that overload as valid? (includes are proper) Thanks for your time.

  Read the article

• 'Scanner' does not name a type error in g++

  - by Max

  Hi. I'm trying to compile code in g++ and I get the following errors: In file included from scanner.hpp:8, from scanner.cpp:5: parser.hpp:14: error: ‘Scanner’ does not name a type parser.hpp:15: error: ‘Token’ does not name a type Here's my g++ command: g++ parser.cpp scanner.cpp -Wall Here's parser.hpp: #ifndef PARSER_HPP #define PARSER_HPP #include <string> #include <map> #include "scanner.hpp" using std::string; class Parser { // Member Variables private: Scanner lex; // Lexical analyzer Token look; // tracks the current lookahead token // Member Functions <some function declarations> }; #endif and here's scanner.hpp: #ifndef SCANNER_HPP #define SCANNER_HPP #include <iostream> #include <cctype> #include <string> #include <map> #include "parser.hpp" using std::string; using std::map; enum { // reserved words BOOL, ELSE, IF, TRUE, WHILE, DO, FALSE, INT, VOID, // punctuation and operators LPAREN, RPAREN, LBRACK, RBRACK, LBRACE, RBRACE, SEMI, COMMA, PLUS, MINUS, TIMES, DIV, MOD, AND, OR, NOT, IS, ADDR, EQ, NE, LT, GT, LE, GE, // symbolic constants NUM, ID, ENDFILE, ERROR }; class Token { public: int tag; int value; string lexeme; Token() {tag = 0;} Token(int t) {tag = t;} }; class Num : public Token { public: Num(int v) {tag = NUM; value = v;} }; class Word : public Token { public: Word() {tag = 0; lexeme = "default";} Word(int t, string l) {tag = t; lexeme = l;} }; class Scanner { private: int line; // which line the compiler is currently on int depth; // how deep in the parse tree the compiler is map<string,Word> words; // list of reserved words and used identifiers // Member Functions public: Scanner(); Token scan(); string printTag(int); friend class Parser; }; #endif anyone see the problem? I feel like I'm missing something incredibly obvious.

  Read the article

• C++ SDL State Machine Segfault

  - by user1602079

  The code compiles and builds fine, but it immediately segfaults. I've looked at this for a while and have no idea why. Any help is appreciated. Thank you! Here's the code: main.cpp #include "SDL/SDL.h" #include "Globals.h" #include "Core.h" #include "GameStates.h" #include "Introduction.h" int main(int argc, char** args) { if(core.Initilize() == false) { SDL_Quit(); } while(core.desiredstate != core.Quit) { currentstate->EventHandling(); currentstate->Logic(); core.ChangeState(); currentstate->Render(); currentstate->Update(); } SDL_Quit(); } Core.h #ifndef CORE_H #define CORE_H #include "SDL/SDL.h" #include <string> class Core { public: SDL_Surface* Load(std::string filename); void ApplySurface(int X, int Y, SDL_Surface* source, SDL_Surface* destination); void SetState(int newstate); void ChangeState(); enum state { Intro, STATES_NULL, Quit }; int desiredstate, stateID; bool Initilize(); }; #endif Core.cpp #include "Core.h" #include "SDL/SDL.h" #include "Globals.h" #include "Introduction.h" #include <string> /* Initilizes SDL subsystems */ bool Core::Initilize() { //Inits subsystems, reutrns false upon error if(SDL_Init(SDL_INIT_EVERYTHING) == -1) { return false; } SDL_WM_SetCaption("Game", NULL); return true; } /* Loads surfaces and optimizes them */ SDL_Surface* Core::Load(std::string filename) { //The surface to be optimized SDL_Surface* original = SDL_LoadBMP(filename.c_str()); //The optimized surface SDL_Surface* optimized = NULL; //Optimizes the image if it loaded properly if(original != NULL) { optimized = SDL_DisplayFormat(original); SDL_FreeSurface(original); } else { //returns NULL upon error return NULL; } return optimized; } /* Blits surfaces */ void Core::ApplySurface(int X, int Y, SDL_Surface* source, SDL_Surface* destination) { //Stores the coordinates of the surface SDL_Rect offsets; offsets.x = X; offsets.y = Y; //Bits the surface if both surfaces are present if(source != NULL && destination != NULL) { SDL_BlitSurface(source, NULL, destination, &offsets); } } /* Sets desiredstate to newstate */ void Core::SetState(int newstate) { if(desiredstate != Quit) { desiredstate = newstate; } } /* Changes the game state */ void Core::ChangeState() { if(desiredstate != STATES_NULL && desiredstate != Quit) { delete currentstate; switch(desiredstate) { case Intro: currentstate = new Introduction(); break; } stateID = desiredstate; desiredstate = core.STATES_NULL; } } Globals.h #ifndef GLOBALS_H #define GLOBALS_H #include "SDL/SDL.h" #include "Core.h" #include "GameStates.h" extern SDL_Surface* screen; extern Core core; extern GameStates* currentstate; #endif Globals.cpp #include "Globals.h" #include "SDL/SDL.h" #include "GameStates.h" SDL_Surface* screen = SDL_SetVideoMode(640, 480, 32, SDL_SWSURFACE); Core core; GameStates* currentstate = NULL; GameStates.h #ifndef GAMESTATES_H #define GAMESTATES_H class GameStates { public: virtual void EventHandling() = 0; virtual void Logic() = 0; virtual void Render() = 0; virtual void Update() = 0; }; #endif Introduction.h #ifndef INTRODUCTION_H #define INTRODUCTION_H #include "GameStates.h" #include "Globals.h" class Introduction : public GameStates { public: Introduction(); private: void EventHandling(); void Logic(); void Render(); void Update(); ~Introduction(); SDL_Surface* test; }; #endif Introduction.cpp #include "SDL/SDL.h" #include "Core.h" #include "Globals.h" #include "Introduction.h" /* Loads all the assets */ Introduction::Introduction() { test = core.Load("test.bmp"); } void Introduction::EventHandling() { SDL_Event event; while(SDL_PollEvent(&event)) { switch(event.type) { case SDL_QUIT: core.SetState(core.Quit); break; } } } void Introduction::Logic() { //to be coded } void Introduction::Render() { core.ApplySurface(30, 30, test, screen); } void Introduction::Update() { SDL_Flip(screen); } Introduction::~Introduction() { SDL_FreeSurface(test); } Sorry if the formatting is a bit off... Having to put four spaces for it to be put into a code block offset it a bit. I ran it through gdb and this is what I got: Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x0000000000400e46 in main () Which isn't incredibly useful... Any help is appreciated. Thank you!

  Read the article

• C++ include statement required if defining a map in a headerfile.

  - by Justin

  I was doing a project for computer course on programming concepts. This project was to be completed in C++ using Object Oriented designs we learned throughout the course. Anyhow, I have two files symboltable.h and symboltable.cpp. I want to use a map as the data structure so I define it in the private section of the header file. I #include <map> in the cpp file before I #include "symboltable.h". I get several errors from the compiler (MS VS 2008 Pro) when I go to debug/run the program the first of which is: Error 1 error C2146: syntax error : missing ';' before identifier 'table' c:\users\jsmith\documents\visual studio 2008\projects\project2\project2\symboltable.h 22 Project2 To fix this I had to #include <map> in the header file, which to me seems strange. Here are the relevant code files: // symboltable.h #include <map> class SymbolTable { public: SymbolTable() {} void insert(string variable, double value); double lookUp(string variable); void init(); // Added as part of the spec given in the conference area. private: map<string, double> table; // Our container for variables and their values. }; and // symboltable.cpp #include <map> #include <string> #include <iostream> using namespace std; #include "symboltable.h" void SymbolTable::insert(string variable, double value) { table[variable] = value; // Creates a new map entry, if variable name already exist it overwrites last value. } double SymbolTable::lookUp(string variable) { if(table.find(variable) == table.end()) // Search for the variable, find() returns a position, if thats the end then we didnt find it. throw exception("Error: Uninitialized variable"); else return table[variable]; } void SymbolTable::init() { table.clear(); // Clears the map, removes all elements. }

  Read the article

• g++ doesn't think I'm passing a reference

  - by Ben Jones

  When I call a method that takes a reference, g++ complains that I'm not passing a reference. I thought that the caller didn't have to do anything different for PBR. Here's the offending code: //method definition void addVertexInfo(VertexInfo &vi){vertexInstances.push_back(vi);} //method call: sharedVertices[index]->addVertexInfo(VertexInfo(n1index, n2index)); And here's the error: GLUtils/GLMesh.cpp: In member function 'void GLMesh::addPoly(GLIndexedPoly&)': GLUtils/GLMesh.cpp:110: error: no matching function for call to 'SharedVertexInfo::addVertexInfo(VertexInfo)' GLUtils/GLMesh.h:93: note: candidates are: void SharedVertexInfo::addVertexInfo(VertexInfo&)

  Read the article

• Using pipes inside a class in C++

  - by Paul

  I'm trying to use this tutorial to make plots with Gnuplot in C++. However I will be using the pipe to Gnuplot from within a class, but then I run into some problems: I've got a header file where I declare all variables etc. I need to declare the pipe-variable here too, but how do I do that? I've tried doing it straight away, but it doesn't work: Logger.h: class Logger { FILE pipe; } Logger.cpp: Logger::Logger() { //Constructor *pipe = popen("gnuplot -persist","w"); } Gives the error Logger.cpp:28: error: no match for ‘operator=’ in ‘*((Logger*)this)->Logger::pipe = popen(((const char*)"gnuplot -persist"), ((const char*)"w"))’ Suggestions?

  Read the article

• C++: Switching from MSVC to G++: Global Variables

  - by feed the fire

  I recently switched to Linux and wanted to compile my Visual Studio 2010 C++ source code, which uses only the STL, on G++. My Linux machine currently isn't available but I can try to tell you what is going on, first: As I try to compile my project, all global variables I use in main and which perfectly work on MSVC result in myGlobalVar is not defined in this scope errors. My project is built nearly the same as the example below: // myclass.h class myClass { // .... }; extern myClass globalInstance; // myclass.cpp #include "myclass.h" // myClass functions located here myClass globalInstance; // main.cpp #include "myclass.h" int main( ) { // Accessing globalInstance results in an error: Not defined in this scope } What am I doing wrong? Where are the differences between G++ and MSVC in terms of global variables?

  Read the article

• Custom Global Hotkey

  - by UK

  I am trying to get the user defined global hot key for my application. Here is my application code, user.rc CONTROL "", IDC_MHOTKEY, HOTKEY_CLASS, WS_TABSTOP, 91, 86, 68, 14 function.cpp WORD wHotKey = SendDlgItemMessage(hwnd, IDC_MHOTKEY, HKM_GETHOTKEY, 0, 0); GLOBAL_HOTKEY= wHotKey; RegisterHotKey ( NULL, TURN_OFF_HOTKEY, HIBYTE(LOWORD(wHotKey)) , wHotKey); main.cpp if ( messages.message == WM_HOTKEY && ( HIWORD ( messages.lParam ) == GLOBAL_HOTKEY) ) alert("Coming only for Single Key"); This code works well, Only If the user selects a single key and not working when he selects multiple key combined like CTRL+F8.

  Read the article

• Custom Global Hotkey Win32 C - Problem

  - by UK

  Hello , I am trying to get the user defined global hot key for my application. Here is my application code, user.rc CONTROL "", IDC_MHOTKEY, HOTKEY_CLASS, WS_TABSTOP, 91, 86, 68, 14 function.cpp WORD wHotKey = SendDlgItemMessage(hwnd, IDC_MHOTKEY, HKM_GETHOTKEY, 0, 0); GLOBAL_HOTKEY= wHotKey; RegisterHotKey ( NULL, TURN_OFF_HOTKEY, HIBYTE(LOWORD(wHotKey)) , wHotKey); main.cpp if ( messages.message == WM_HOTKEY && ( HIWORD ( messages.lParam ) == GLOBAL_HOTKEY) ) alert("Coming only for Single Key"); This code works well, Only If the user selects a single key and not working when he selects multiple key combined like CTRL+F8. I know I am doing something wrong here. Really appreciate If someone guide me in a right path.

  Read the article

• If I don't odr-use a variable, can I have multiple definitions of it across translation units?

  - by sftrabbit

  The standard seems to imply that there is no restriction on the number of definitions of a variable if it is not odr-used (§3.2/3): Every program shall contain exactly one definition of every non-inline function or variable that is odr-used in that program; no diagnostic required. It does say that any variable can't be defined multiple times within a translation unit (§3.2/1): No translation unit shall contain more than one definition of any variable, function, class type, enumeration type, or template. But I can't find a restriction for non-odr-used variables across the entire program. So why can't I compile something like the following: // other.cpp int x; // main.cpp int x; int main() {} Compiling and linking these files with g++ 4.6.3, I get a linker error for multiple definition of 'x'. To be honest, I expect this, but since x is not odr-used anywhere (as far as I can tell), I can't see how the standard restricts this. Or is it undefined behaviour?

  Read the article

• drawing of the circle using C

  - by lego69

  hello, how can I draw circle using C language and DEV-cpp, snippet of the code will be very helpful, with openGl and without, thanks in advance for any help

  Read the article

• Feedback + Bad output

  - by user1770094

  So I've got an assignment I think I'm more or less done with, but there is something which is messing up the output badly somewhere down the line, or even the calculation, and I don't see where the problem is. The assignment is to make a game in which a certain ammount of players run up through a tunnel towards a spot,where they will stop and spin around it,and then their dizziness is supposed to make them randomly either progress towards goal or regress back towards start.And each time they get another spot closer to goal,they get another "marking",and it goes on like this until one of them reaches goal. The program includes three files: one main.cpp,one header file and another cpp file. The header file: #ifndef COMPETITOR_H #define COMPETITOR_H #include <string> using namespace std; class Competitor { public: void setName(); string getName(); void spin(); void move(); int checkScore(); void printResult(); private: string name; int direction; int markedSpots; }; #endif // COMPETITOR_H The second cpp file: #include <iostream> #include <string> #include <cstdlib> #include <ctime> #include "Competitor.h" using namespace std; void Competitor::setName() { cin>>name; } string Competitor::getName() { return name; } void Competitor::spin() { srand(time(NULL)); direction = rand()%1+0; } void Competitor::move() { if(direction == 1) { markedSpots++; } else if(direction == 0 && markedSpots != 0) { markedSpots--; } } int Competitor::checkScore() { return markedSpots; } void Competitor::printResult() { if(direction == 1) { cout<<" is heading towards goal and has currently "<<markedSpots<<" markings."; } else if(direction == 0) { cout<<"\n"<<getName()<<" is heading towards start and has currently "<<markedSpots<<" markings."; } } The main cpp file: #include <iostream> #include <string> #include <cstdlib> #include <ctime> #include "Competitor.h" using namespace std; void inputAndSetNames(Competitor comps[],int nrOfComps); void makeTwist(Competitor comps[],int nrOfComps); void makeMove(Competitor comps[],int nrOfComps); void showAll(Competitor comps[],int nrOfComps); int winner(Competitor comps[],int nrOfComps, int nrOfTwistPlaces); int main() { int nrOfTwistPlaces; int nrOfComps; int noWinner = -1; int laps = 0; cout<<"How many spinning places should there be? "; cin>>nrOfTwistPlaces; cout<<"How many competitors should there be? "; cin>>nrOfComps; Competitor * comps = new Competitor[nrOfComps]; inputAndSetNames(comps, nrOfComps); do { laps++; cout<<"\nSpin "<<laps<<":"; makeTwist(comps, nrOfComps); makeMove(comps, nrOfComps); showAll(comps, nrOfComps); }while(noWinner == -1); delete [] comps; return 0; } void inputAndSetNames(Competitor comps[],int nrOfComps) { cout<<"Type in the names of the "<<nrOfComps<<" competitors:\n"; for(int i=0;i<nrOfComps;i++) { comps[i].setName(); } cout<<"\n"; } void makeTwist(Competitor comps[],int nrOfComps) { for(int i=0;i<nrOfComps;i++) { comps[i].spin(); } } void makeMove(Competitor comps[],int nrOfComps) { for(int i=0;i<nrOfComps;i++) { comps[i].move(); } } void showAll(Competitor comps[],int nrOfComps) { for(int i=0;i<nrOfComps;i++) { comps[i].printResult(); } cout<<"\n\n"; system("pause"); } int winner(Competitor comps[],int nrOfComps, int nrOfTwistPlaces) { int end = 0; int score = 0; for(int i=0;i<nrOfComps;i++) { score = comps[i].checkScore(); if(score == nrOfTwistPlaces) { end = 1; } else end = -1; } return end; } I'd be grateful if you would point out other mistakes if you see any.Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• template function error..

  - by sil3nt

  Hi there, I have function which takes in an parameter of a class called "Triple", and am returning the averge of 3 values of type float. template <typename ElemT> float average(Triple ElemT<float> &arg){ float pos1 = arg.getElem(1); float pos2 = arg.getElem(2); float pos3 = arg.getElem(3); return ( (pos1+pos2+po3) /3 ); } when i try compiling this i get q2b.cpp:32: error: template declaration of `float average' q2b.cpp:32: error: missing template arguments before "ElemT" not quite sure what this means.

  Read the article

• Problem Making C++ script

  - by Abs

  Hello all, I am not sure if I can post this sort of question (apologies in advance) but I am trying to build something from this blog post. # mkdir wkthumb # cat > wkthumb.cpp # qmake -project # qmake && make # ./wkthumb I have no experience with this, but I download all the files needed in the directory wkthumb using git. I have gone inside this directory and tried to execute cat > wkthumb.cpp - this just hangs for me. In addition, I thought cat was supposed to be used like this: cat file1.txt file2.txt > file3.txt? The above is blank with the first arguments? I am using Fedora Core 10.

  Read the article

• C: Why does gcc allow char array initialization with string literal larger than array?

  - by Ashwin

  int main() { char a[7] = "Network"; return 0; } A string literal in C is terminated internally with a nul character. So, the above code should give a compilation error since the actual length of the string literal Network is 8 and it cannot fit in a char[7] array. However, gcc (even with -Wall) on Ubuntu compiles this code without any error or warning. Why does gcc allow this and not flag it as compilation error? gcc only gives a warning (still no error!) when the char array size is smaller than the string literal. For example, it warns on: char a[6] = "Network"; [Related] Visual C++ 2012 gives a compilation error for char a[7]: 1>d:\main.cpp(3): error C2117: 'a' : array bounds overflow 1> d:\main.cpp(3) : see declaration of 'a'

  Read the article

• Problem with "not declared in this scope" error

  - by lego69

  I've got: error a1 was not declared in this scope Can somebody please explain why this code causes that? quiz.h #ifndef QUIZ_H_ #define QUIZ_H_ #include "quiz.cpp" class A { private: int player; public: A(int initPlayer); ~A(); void foo(); }; #endif /* QUIZ_H_ */ quiz.cpp #include "quiz.h" #include <iostream> using std::cout; using std::endl; A::A(int initPlayer = 0){ player = initPlayer; } A::~A(){ } void A::foo(){ cout << player; } main function #include "quiz.h" int main() { quiz(7); return 0; } quiz function #include "quiz.h" void quiz(int i) { A a1(i); a1.foo(); }

  Read the article

• including a string as a parameter to a function in a header file? c++

  - by Nara

  hello everyone, total newbie is here :) i have this header file, zeeheader.h, and i wrote some classes in it, i'm having problems giving a string as a parameter to one of the functions: class DeliTest { public: void DeliCheck(Stack*,string); void ComCheck (unsigned,string); bool EofCheck (unsigned,string); }; as i was implementinng it in the cpp file, i added #include to it, it seemed to be working, for example : as i was writing the "data." i got the "length()" appear by the intellisense, so i thought that it was working, but it wasn't. i got errors like: syntax error : identifier 'string' overloaded member function not found in 'DeliTest' this is one of the fucntions in the cpp file: bool DeliTest::EofCheck(unsigned i, string data) { if (i == data.length()-1) return 1; return 0; } am i supposed to be adding something to the header file??

  Read the article

• headfile conflict let every line becomes "not declared"

  - by altria

  I have a.h a.cpp b.h and a library for b. The thing is, if I choose to include b.h in either a.h or a.cpp, it will let complier return "was not declared in this scope" for every line of a.h. The same program works fine on another computer, although Makefile might be different. I have to admit, I think I may have change some settings, but I forgot which one I changed. Is there anybody have any idea? I am using linux and gcc.

  Read the article

• Name hiding from inherited classes

  - by Mercerbearman

  I have the following sample code and I wanted to know the correct way to get access to the Pass method in the CBar class. Currently I have found 3 ways to get access to this method and they are as follows: Casting the object, ((CBar *) &foo)-Pass(1, 2, 3); Using this syntax, foo.CBar::Pass(1,2,3); Use the "using" syntax in the CFoo class declaration, using CBar::Pass. The following is an example of a simple project to test this capability. Foo.h #include "bar.h" class CFoo : public CBar { private: double m_a; double m_b; public: CFoo(void); ~CFoo(void); void Pass(double a, double b); }; Foo.cpp #include "Foo.h" CFoo::CFoo(void) { m_a = 0.0; m_b = 0.0; } CFoo::~CFoo(void) { } void CFoo::Pass(double a, double b) { m_a = a; m_b = b; } Bar.h class CBar { int m_x; int m_y; int m_z; public: CBar(void); ~CBar(void); void Pass(int x, int y, int z); }; Bar.cpp #include "Bar.h" CBar::CBar(void) { m_x = 0; m_y = 0; m_z = 0; } CBar::~CBar(void) { } void CBar::Pass(int x, int y, int z) { m_x = x; m_y = y; m_z = z; } And my main class DoStuff.cpp #include "DoStuff.h" #include "Foo.h" CDoStuff::CDoStuff(void) { } CDoStuff::~CDoStuff(void) { } int main() { CFoo foo, foo1, foo2; //This only gets to the Pass method in Foo. foo.Pass(2.5, 3.5); //Gets access to Pass method in Bar. foo1.CBar::Pass(5,10,15); //Can also case and access by location for the same result?? ((CBar *) &foo2)->Pass(100,200,300); return 0; } Are each of these options viable? Are some preferred? Are there pitfalls with using any one of the methods listed? I am especially curious about the foo.CBar::Pass(1,2,3) syntax. Thanks, B

  Read the article

• PASS: Bylaw Changes

  - by Bill Graziano

  While you’re reading this, a post should be going up on the PASS blog on the plans to change our bylaws.  You should be able to find our old bylaws, our proposed bylaws and a red-lined version of the changes.  We plan to listen to feedback until March 31st.  At that point we’ll decide whether to vote on these changes or take other action. The executive summary is that we’re adding a restriction to prevent more than two people from the same company on the Board and eliminating the Board’s Officer Appointment Committee to have Officers directly elected by the Board.  This second change better matches how officer elections have been conducted in the past. The Gritty Details Our scope was to change bylaws to match how PASS actually works and tackle a limited set of issues.  Changing the bylaws is hard.  We’ve been working on these changes since the March board meeting last year.  At that meeting we met and talked through the issues we wanted to address.  In years past the Board has tried to come up with language and then we’ve discussed and negotiated to get to the result.  In March, we gave HQ guidance on what we wanted and asked them to come up with a starting point.  Hannes worked on building us an initial set of changes that we could work our way through.  Discussing changes like this over email is difficult wasn’t very productive.  We do a much better job on this at the in-person Board meetings.  Unfortunately there are only 2 or 3 of those a year. In August we met in Nashville and spent time discussing the changes.  That was also the day after we released the slate for the 2010 election. The discussion around that colored what we talked about in terms of these changes.  We talked very briefly at the Summit and again reviewed and revised the changes at the Board meeting in January.  This is the result of those changes and discussions. We made numerous small changes to clean up language and make wording more clear.  We also made two big changes. Director Employment Restrictions The first is that only two people from the same company can serve on the Board at the same time.  The actual language in section VI.3 reads: A maximum of two (2) Directors who are employed by, or who are joint owners or partners in, the same for-profit venture, company, organization, or other legal entity, may concurrently serve on the PASS Board of Directors at any time. The definition of “employed” is at the sole discretion of the Board. And what a mess this turns out to be in practice.  Our membership is a hodgepodge of interlocking relationships.  Let’s say three Board members get together and start a blog service for SQL Server bloggers.  It’s technically for-profit.  Let’s assume it makes $8 in the first year.  Does that trigger this clause?  (Technically yes.)  We had a horrible time trying to write language that covered everything.  All the sample bylaws that we found were just as vague as this. That led to the third clause in this section.  The first sentence reads: The Board of Directors reserves the right, strictly on a case-by-case basis, to overrule the requirements of Section VI.3 by majority decision for any single Director’s conflict of employment. We needed some way to handle the trivial issues and exercise some judgment.  It seems like a public vote is the best way.  This discloses the relationship and gets each Board member on record on the issue.   In practice I think this clause will rarely be used.  I think this entire section will only be invoked for actual employment issues and not for small side projects.  In either case we have the mechanisms in place to handle it in a public, transparent way. That’s the first and third clauses.  The second clause says that if your situation changes and you fall afoul of this restriction you need to notify the Board.  The clause further states that if this new job means a Board members violates the “two-per-company” rule the Board may request their resignation.  The Board can also  allow the person to continue serving with a majority vote.  I think this will also take some judgment.  Consider a person switching jobs that leads to three people from the same company.  I’m very likely to ask for someone to resign if all three are two weeks into a two year term.  I’m unlikely to ask anyone to resign if one is two weeks away from ending their term.  In either case, the decision will be a public vote that we can be held accountable for. One concern that was raised was whether this would affect someone choosing to accept a job.  I think that’s a choice for them to make.  PASS is clearly stating its intent that only two directors from any one organization should serve at any time.  Once these bylaws are approved, this policy should not come as a surprise to any potential or current Board members considering a job change.  This clause isn’t perfect.  The biggest hole is business relationships that aren’t defined above.  Let’s say that two employees from company “X” serve on the Board.  What happens if I accept a full-time consulting contract with that company?  Let’s assume I’m working directly for one of the two existing Board members.  That doesn’t violate section VI.3.  But I think it’s clearly the kind of relationship we’d like to prevent.  Unfortunately that was even harder to write than what we have now.  I fully expect that in the next revision of the bylaws we’ll address this.  It just didn’t make it into this one. Officer Elections The officer election process received a slightly different rewrite.  Our goal was to codify in the bylaws the actual process we used to elect the officers.  The officers are the President, Executive Vice-President (EVP) and Vice-President of Marketing.  The Immediate Past President (IPP) is also an officer but isn’t elected.  The IPP serves in that role for two years after completing their term as President.  We do that for continuity’s sake.  Some organizations have a President-elect that serves for one or two years.  The group that founded PASS chose to have an IPP. When I started on the Board, the Nominating Committee (NomCom) selected the slate for the at-large directors and the slate for the officers.  There was always one candidate for each officer position.  It wasn’t really an election so much as the NomCom decided who the next person would be for each officer position.  Behind the scenes the Board worked to select the best people for the role. In June 2009 that process was changed to bring it line with what actually happens.  An Officer Appointment Committee was created that was a subset of the Board.  That committee would take time to interview the candidates and present a slate to the Board for approval.  The majority vote of the Board would determine the officers for the next two years.  In practice the Board itself interviewed the candidates and conducted the elections.  That means it was time to change the bylaws again. Section VII.2 and VII.3 spell out the process used to select the officers.  We use the phrase “Officer Appointment” to separate it from the Director election but the end result is that the Board elects the officers.  Section VII.3 starts: Officers shall be appointed bi-annually by a majority of all the voting members of the Board of Directors. Everything else revolves around that sentence.  We use the word appoint but they truly are elected.  There are details in the bylaws for term limits, minimum requirements for President (1 prior term as an officer), tie breakers and filling vacancies. In practice we will have an election for President, then an election for EVP and then an election for VP Marketing.  That means that losing candidates will be able to fall down the ladder and run for the next open position.  Another point to note is that officers aren’t at-large directors.  That means if a current sitting officer loses all three elections they are off the Board.  Having Board member votes public will help with the transparency of this approach. This process has a number of positive and negatives.  The biggest concern I expect to hear is that our members don’t directly choose the officers.  I’m going to try and list all the positives and negatives of this approach. Many non-profits value continuity and are slower to change than a business.  On the plus side this promotes that.  On the negative side this promotes that.  If we change too slowly the members complain that we aren’t responsive.  If we change too quickly we make mistakes and fail at various things.  We’ve been criticized for both of those lately so I’m not entirely sure where to draw the line.  My rough assumption to this point is that we’re going too slow on governance and too quickly on becoming “more than a Summit.”  This approach creates competition in the officer elections.  If you are an at-large director there is no consequence to losing an election.  If you are an officer the only way to stay on the Board is to win an officer election or an at-large election.  If you are an officer and lose an election you can always run for the next office down.  This makes it very easy for multiple people to contest an election. There is value in a person moving through the officer positions up to the Presidency.  Having the Board select the officers promotes this.  The down side is that it takes a LOT of time to get to the Presidency.  We’ve had good people struggle with burnout.  We’ve had lots of discussion around this.  The process as we’ve described it here makes it possible for someone to move quickly through the ranks but doesn’t prevent people from working their way up through each role. We talked long and hard about having the officers elected by the members.  We had a self-imposed deadline to complete these changes prior to elections this summer. The other challenge was that our original goal was to make the bylaws reflect our actual process rather than create a new one.  I believe we accomplished this goal. We ran out of time to consider this option in the detail it needs.  Having member elections for officers needs a number of problems solved.  We would need a way for candidates to fall through the election.  This is what promotes competition.  Without this few people would risk an election and we’ll be back to one candidate per slot.  We need to do this without having multiple elections.  We may be able to copy what other organizations are doing but I was surprised at how little I could find on other organizations.  We also need a way for people that lose an officer election to win an at-large election.  Otherwise we’ll have very little competition for officers. This brings me to an area that I think we as a Board haven’t done a good job.  We haven’t built a strong process to tell you who is doing a good job and who isn’t.  This is a double-edged sword.  I don’t want to highlight Board members that are failing.  That’s not a good way to get people to volunteer and run for the Board.  But I also need a way let the members make an informed choice about who is doing a good job and would make a good officer.  Encouraging Board members to blog, publishing minutes and making votes public helps in that regard but isn’t the final answer.  I don’t know what the final answer is yet.  I do know that the Board members themselves are uniquely positioned to know which other Board members are doing good work.  They know who speaks up in meetings, who works to build consensus, who has good ideas and who works with the members.  What I Could Do Better I’ve learned a lot writing this about how we communicated with our members.  The next time we revise the bylaws I’d do a few things differently.  The biggest change would be to provide better documentation.  The March 2009 minutes provide a very detailed look into what changes we wanted to make to the bylaws.  Looking back, I’m a little surprised at how closely they matched our final changes and covered the various arguments.  If you just read those you’d get 90% of what we eventually changed.  Nearly everything else was just details around implementation.  I’d also consider publishing a scope document defining exactly what we were doing any why.  I think it really helped that we had a limited, defined goal in mind.  I don’t think we did a good job communicating that goal outside the meeting minutes though. That said, I wish I’d blogged more after the August and January meeting.  I think it would have helped more people to know that this change was coming and to be ready for it. Conclusion These changes address two big concerns that the Board had.  First, it prevents a single organization from dominating the Board.  Second, it codifies and clearly spells out how officers are elected.  This is the process that was previously followed but it was somewhat murky.  These changes bring clarity to this and clearly explain the process the Board will follow. We’re going to listen to feedback until March 31st.  At that time we’ll decide whether to approve these changes.  I’m also assuming that we’ll start another round of changes in the next year or two.  Are there other issues in the bylaws that we should tackle in the future?

  Read the article

• Thoughts on Build 2013

  - by D'Arcy Lussier

  Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/dlussier/archive/2013/06/30/153294.aspxAnd so another Build conference has come to an end. Below are my thoughts/perspectives on various aspects of the event. I’ll do a separate blog post on my thoughts of the Build message for developers. The Good Moscone center was a great venue for Build! Easy to get around, easy to get to, and well maintained, it was a very comfortable conference venue. Yeah, the free swag was nice. Build has built up an expectation that attendees will always get something; it’ll be interesting to see how Microsoft maintains this expectation over the next few Build events. I still maintain that free swag should never be the main reason one attends an event, and for me this was definitely just an added bonus. I’m planning on trying to use the Surface as a dedicated 2nd device at work for meetings, I’ll share my experiences over the next few months. The hackathon event was a great idea, although personally I couldn’t justify spending the money on a conference registration just to spend the entire conference coding. Still, the apps that were created were really great and there was a lot of passion and excitement around the hackathon. I wonder if they couldn’t have had the hackathon on the Monday/Tuesday for those that wanted to participate so they didn’t miss any of the actual conference over Wed/Thurs. San Francisco was a great city to host Build. Getting from hotels to the conference center was very easy (well especially for me, I was only 3 blocks away) and the city itself felt very safe. However, if I never have to fly into SFO again I’ll be alright with that! Delays going into and out of SFO and both apparently were due to the airport itself. The Bad Build is one of those oddities on the conference landscape where people will pay to commit to attending an event without knowing anything about the sessions. We got our list of conference sessions when we registered on Tuesday, not before. And even then, we only got titles and not descriptions (those were eventually made available via the conference’s mobile application). I get it…they’re going to make announcements and they don’t want to give anything away through the session titles. But honestly, there wasn’t anything in the session titles that I would have considered a surprise. Breakfasts were brutal. High-carb pastries, donuts, and muffins with fruit and hard boiled eggs does not a conference breakfast make. I can’t believe that the difference between a continental breakfast per person and a hot breakfast buffet would have been a huge impact to a conference fee that was already around $2000. The vendor area was anemic. I don’t know why Microsoft forces the vendors into cookie-cutter booth areas (this year they were all made of plywood material). WPC, TechEd – booth areas there allow the vendors to be creative with their displays. Not so much for Build. Really odd was the lack of Microsoft’s own representation around Bing. In the day 1 keynote Microsoft made a big deal about Bing as an API. Yet there was nobody in the vendor area set up to provide more information or have discussions with about the Bing API. The Ugly Our name badges were NFC enabled. The purpose of this, beyond the vendors being able to scan your info, wasn’t really made clear. An attendee I talked to showed how you could get a reader app on your phone so you can scan other members cards and collect their contact info – which is a kewl idea; business cards are so 1990’s. But I was *shocked* at the amount of information that was on our name badges! Here’s what’s displayed on our name badge: - Name - Company - Twitter Handle I’m ok with that. But here’s what actually gets read: - Name - Company - Address Used for Registration - Phone Number Used for Registration So sharing that info with another attendee, they get way more of my info than just how to find me on Twitter! Microsoft, you need to fix this for the future. If vendors want to collect information on attendees, they should be able to collect an ID from the badge, then get a report with corresponding records afterwards. My personal information should not be so readily available, and without my knowledge! Final Verdict Maybe its my older age, maybe its where I’m at in life with family, maybe its where I’m at in my career, but when I consider whether a conference experience was valuable I get to the core reason I attend: opportunities to learn, opportunities to network, opportunities to engage with Microsoft. Opportunities to Learn:  Sessions I attended were generally OK, with some really stand out ones on Day 2. I would love to see Microsoft adopt the Dojo format for a portion of their sessions. Hands On Labs are dull, lecture style sessions are great for information sharing. But a guided hands-on coding session (Read: Dojo) provides the best of both worlds. Being that all content is publically available online to everyone (Build attendee or not), the value of attending the conference sessions is decreased. The value though is in the discussions that take part in person afterwards, which leads to… Opportunities to Network: I enjoyed getting together with old friends and connecting with Twitter friends in person for the first time. I also had an opportunity to meet total strangers. So from a networking perspective, Build was fantastic! I still think it would have been great to have an area for ad-hoc discussions – where speakers could announce they’d be available for more questions after their sessions, or attendees who wanted to discuss more in depth on a topic with other attendees could arrange space. Some people have no problems being outgoing and making these things happen, but others are not and a structured model is more attractive. Opportunities to Engage with Microsoft: Hit and miss on this one. Outside of the vendor area, unless you cornered or reached out to a speaker, there wasn’t any defined way to connect with blue badges. And as I mentioned above, Microsoft didn’t have full representation in the vendor area (no Bing). All in all, Build was a fun party where I was informed about some new stuff and got some free swag. Was it worth the time away from home and the hit to my PD budget? I’d say Somewhat. Build is a great informational conference, but I wouldn’t call it a learning conference. Considering that TechEd seems to be moving to more of an IT Pro focus, independent developer conferences seem to be the best value for those looking to learn and not just be informed. With the rapid development cycle Microsoft is embracing, we’re already seeing Build happening twice within a 12 month period. If that continues, the value of attending Build in person starts to diminish – especially with so much content available online. If Microsoft wants Build to be a must-attend event in the future, they need to start incorporating aspects of Tech Ed, past PDCs, and other conferences so those that want to leave with more than free swag have something to attract them.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78  | Next Page >