standards

I need to write function like double_to_int(double val, int *err) which would covert double val to integer when it's possible; otherwise report an error (NAN/INFs/OUT_OF_RANGE). so pseudo code implementation would look like: if isnan(val): err = ERR_NAN return 0 if val < MAX_INT: err = ERR_MINUS_INF return MIN_INT if ... return (int)val There are at least two similar questions on SO: in this answer it's solved in enough clean way, though it's C++ solution - in C we do not have portable digits for signed int. In this answer, it's explained why we cannot just check (val > INT_MAX || val < INT

I thought using colons in URIs was "illegal". Then I saw that vimeo.com is using URIs like http://www.vimeo.com/tag:sample. What do you feel about the usage of colons in URIs? How do I make my Apache server work with the "colon" syntax because now it's throwing the "Access forbidden!" error when there is a colon in the first segment of the URI? Colons are allowed in the URI path. But you need to be careful when writing relative URI paths with a colon since it is not allowed when used like this: <a href="tag:sample"> In this case tag would be interpreted as the URI’s scheme. Instead you need to

class A { public: A() = default; A(const A&) = delete; }; class A { public: A() = default; private: A(const A&) = delete; }; Are these two definitions always identical to each other in any cases? They are different only wrt the produced diagnostics . If you make it private , an additional and superfluous access violation is reported: class A { public: A() = default; private: A(const A&) = delete; }; int main() { A a; A a2=a; } results in the following additional output from GCC 4.8: main.cpp: In function 'int main()': main.cpp:6:5: error: 'A::A(const A&)' is private A(const A&) = delete; ^

I know there is the perl regex that is sort of a minor de facto standard, but why hasn't anyone come up with a universal set of standard symbols, syntax and behaviors? There is a standard by IEEE associated with the POSIX effort . The real question is "why doesn't everyone follow it" ? The answer is probably that it is not quite as complex as PCRE with respect to greedy matching and what not. Actually, there is a regular expression standard (POSIX), but it's crappy. So people extend their RE engine to fit the needs of their application. PCRE (Perl-compatible regular expressions) is a pseudo

From searching SO, this question was already asked, almost a year ago now. So now with the new FF, Opera, IE, is it finally time to start developing sites with HTML5 or is it still a little premature and will cause compatibility issues? Is using HTML5 just going to require us to use more and more JS on websites to 'trick' older browsers into working properly? If you add nice features to your site, it is possible it will be talked about and reach the news sites for some free publicity. Aside from that, It would make a good beta site and give you a head start for when it becomes the new

Why did the C++ committee decide that const references should extend the lifetime of temporaries? This fact has already been discussed extensively online, including here on stackoverflow. The definitive resource explaining that this is the case is probably this GoTW: GotW #88: A Candidate For the “Most Important const” What was the rationale for this language feature? Is it known? (The alternative would be that the lifetime of temporaries is not extended by any references.) My own pet theory for the rationale is that this behavior allows objects to hide implementation details. With this rule,