Happy birthday, you!
Uncategorized
4
Posts
2
Posters
2
Views
-
Happy birthday, you!
-
Happy birthday, you!
@bean lol it’s not my bday
-
@bean lol it’s not my bday
@luci well then have I got the post for you: https://twoot.site/@bean/116104935365718327
-
@luci well then have I got the post for you: https://twoot.site/@bean/116104935365718327
@bean nope. Not gonna click it.
-
undefined oblomov@sociale.network shared this topic on
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
@kenobit consultati con qualcuno per le kettle, perché così a naso con le mie conoscenze di fisica tenere muscoli e tendini delle braccia in tensione e trazione pressoché continua per 30 minuti può avere effetti indesiderati...
-
I asked claude.ai to write a spreadsheet. exactly like that. this is what it came back with.
-
@oblomov @GustavinoBevilacqua @ALFA Avrei detto meno! Ho trovato anche delle indicazioni di spessori più bassi, può darsi che il numero si possa dimezzare
-
-
@oblomov Having foo be a class and not a struct would make some things a lot more complicated. If there's no other way, I'd probably prefer to generate automatically the procedures that take struct bar *, invoke the converter explicitly, and then call the hand-written procedures, over doing multiple inheritance.
-
@ananas You're thinking about something weird.
I want to do something like this, which, as you can see, is so perfectly cromulent than it compiles and runs:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct bar {
int paydirt;
};
struct foo {
int some_field_here;
struct bar cheap_dirt;
operator bar &() {
return cheap_dirt;
}
};
void work_on_paydirt (struct bar &object) {
printf("Teh paydirt is %i\n", object.paydirt);
}
struct foo the_foo;
struct bar the_bar;
int main () {
work_on_paydirt(the_foo);
work_on_paydirt(the_bar);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}I just want work_on_paydirt, for historic compatibility reasons, to take struct bar * rather than struct bar & as its argument. Logic-wise, maintenance-wise, there's no difference. Even the generated code is exactly the same (modulo the mangled names). But C++ syntax is only happy to let me define an explicit conversion operator for a struct-to-struct-reference, and not for the same struct's pointer to a struct pointer. I'm not trying to do anything exotic here, or type punning or obfuscatory stuff; I just want the translator to implicitly invoke my type converter for a pointer-to-struct type, just like it can for a referenced-struct type.
