standards

I just checked the C++ standard. It seems the following code should NOT be undefined behavior : unsigned int val = 0x0FFFFFFF; unsigned int res = val >> 34; // res should be 0 by C++ standard, // but GCC gives warning and res is 67108863 And from the standard: The value of E1 >> E2 is E1 right-shifted E2 bit positions. If E1 has an unsigned type or if E1 has a signed type and a non-negative value, the value of the result is the integral part of the quotient of E1/2^E2. If E1 has a signed type and a negative value, the resulting value is implementation-defined. According to the standard, since

Math : If you have an equation like this: x = 3 mod 7 x could be ... -4, 3, 10, 17, ..., or more generally: x = 3 + k * 7 where k can be any integer. I don't know of a modulo operation is defined for math, but the factor ring certainly is. Python : In Python, you will always get non-negative values when you use % with a positive m : #!/usr/bin/python # -*- coding: utf-8 -*- m = 7 for i in xrange(-8, 10 + 1): print(i % 7) Results in: 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 C++: #include <iostream> using namespace std; int main(){ int m = 7; for(int i=-8; i <= 10; i++) { cout << (i % m) << endl; }

According to the C standard (6.5.2.2 paragraph 6) If the expression that denotes the called function has a type that does not include a prototype, the integer promotions are performed on each argument, and arguments that have type float are promoted to double. These are called the default argument promotions. If the number of arguments does not equal the number of parameters, the behavior is undefined. If the function is defined with a type that includes a prototype, and either the prototype ends with an ellipsis (, ...) or the types of the arguments after promotion are not compatible with the

I just discovered this old C++0x draft about modules in C++0x. The idea was to get out of the current .h/.cpp system by writing only .cpp files which would then generate module files during compilation, which would then in turn be used by the other .cpp files. This looks like a really great feature. But my question is: why did they remove it from C++0x? Was it because of too many technical difficulties? Lack of time? And do you think they will consider working on it for an ulterior version of C++? From the State of C++ Evolution (Post San Francisco 2008) , the Modules proposal was categorized

Is there a standard way to access the underlying container of stack , queue , priority_queue ? I found a method called : _Get_container() in VS2008 implementation of stack and queue , but no one for priority_queue ! I think it is not standard anyway. Also, I know it is a silly question! where can I find official documentation of the standard library ? Just for clarification, I wasn't trying to mess up with the underlying container. All what I was trying to do is this : template <class Container> std::ostream& printOneValueContainer(std::ostream& outputstream, Container& container) { Container:

I'm a recent AI graduate (circa 2 years) working for a modest operation. It has fallen to me (primarily as I'm the first 'adopter' in the department) to create a basic (read useful?) C# coding standards document. I think I should explain that I'm probably the most junior software engineer going, but I'm looking forward to this task as hopefully I might actually be able to produce something half usable. I've done a pretty extensive search of the Internet and read articles on what a coding standards document should / should not contain. This seems like a good as place as any to ask for some