• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

162 Neutral

About roadysix_

  • Rank
  1. decltype template parameter

    Thanks for the reply Rob, but that won't and doesn't work. I've discovered after a little test that my problem lies elsewhere and will come back with a new problem.   I should probably mention that the member is actually a method, I'm trying to pass the operator( ) type as a template parameter and its a little closer to this:   <decltype(&T::operator( ))>   This actually worked in a test case but for some reason does not work with my actual traits class.. I'll figure it out..       EDIT: I ran this code through GCC and everything compiled and worked as expected, which only confirms my theory that this is a compiler bug. Really annoying..     EDIT2: Now I'm having some issues with GCC and const member functions.. *sigh*
  2. Hi, I seem to having a little trouble with something that is seemingly simple. I would like to get a typedef from my own traits class where the template is instantiated based on a member T::member. It would be easier to just show an example of what I'm talking about template <typename T> class someclass { public: // doesnt work typedef ns::some_traits<decltype(T::member)>::type type; }; // works typedef ns::some_traits<decltype(otherclass::member)>::type type; To me this looks like I'm missing a typename somewhere in there but I've tried that in a number of variations. Could it be a compiler bug (which I doubt)? I'm using the Visual C++ November 2012 CTP compiler.  If not what is the problem here?   Thanks in advance.
  3. Hello all, been a while, I'm working on this project for a university assignment and I would really like delegates in C++ haha, so I came up with something in a side test project and I'm pretty sure its evil, could someone explain to me what could happen if it is in fact evil (ignoring the usual errors that could happen)   It compiles and runs correctly in visual studio 2012 without warnings heres the code:   #include <iostream> #include <list> class object { public: }; struct eventargs { }; template <typename eventargs_t> struct delegate { typedef void (object::*type)(object*, eventargs_t*); }; typedef delegate<eventargs>::type eventhandler; template <typename handler_t> class event { private: std::list<handler_t> _handlers; public: template <typename handler_u> // I would like to see if the handler_u class is derived from 'object' void addhandler(handler_u handler) { _handlers.push_back((handler_t)handler); } template <typename handler_u> // I would like to see if the handler_u class is derived from 'object' void removehandler(handler_u handler) { _handlers.remove((handler_t)handler); } void invoke(object* sender, eventargs* args) { std::list<handler_t>::iterator it; for (it = _handlers.begin( ); it != _handlers.end( ); ++it) (sender->*(*it))(sender, args); } }; class other : public object { public: void myhandler(object* sender, eventargs* args) { std::cout << "Hello World!" << std::endl; } void myhandler2(object* sender, eventargs* args) { std::cout << "Goodbye World!" << std::endl; } }; int main(int, char**) { object *a = new other( ); event<eventhandler> e; e.addhandler(&other::myhandler); e.addhandler(&other::myhandler2); e.invoke(a, nullptr); e.removehandler(&other::myhandler); e.invoke(a, nullptr); return 0; }   ... Pretty sure its evil, but in what way?... Just FYI I'm probably going to remove the templated parts of add/removehandler
  4. I program in C++, C# and Java for different reasons, pick one based on what your trying to achieve long term and the other languages should fall into place when you attempt to tackle them as they are pretty similar. I am a big sideline supporter of the mono project, decent cross platform C# and .NET would be amazing, considering Java's biggest strength over C# is the ability to "Write once, run anywhere" if you could say the same thing about C# think about what this would mean. A big blow to the gut for me was Xamarins choice to distribute the MonoDroid and MonoTouch projects as proprietary software for an outrageous price (if you ask me), but I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.