reference

问题 In the C++ primer, I found that const int & can bind with a int object.I don't understand that,because I think const int & should bind with a const int not a int object, the int object can change, the book explain this question for that when the const int & object bind with int ; there is a temporary object between the two, for example: int a=0; const int &r=a; We can use b as the temporary value, so above is equal that: const int b=a; const int &r=b; But I think the book is not right,

问题 I am trying to work around NuGet's Source Control limitations. To that end I need to know a bit more about how NuGet works. Lets take a simple example. Say I have a project and I add AutoMapper to it. When I add it where is the dll supposed to be put? I ask because it does not seem to be consistent. Sometimes the reference is looking for the dll the "Packages" folder: and sometimes it is looking in the Debug build output folder: But in both cases the AutoMapper line in the packages.config

问题 I'm doing a practical assignment for university and I've run into a problem. I've got a class that declares this method: bool graficarTablero(const Tablero *&tablero, const string &nombreArchivo); I want to pass a pointer to an object Tablero by constant reference. If I call that function like, say for example: ArchivoGrafico *grafico = new ArchivoGrafico; if(grafico->graficarTablero(tablero, ARCHIVO_GRAFICO)){ ... ...I get compilation errors. Ok, I won't detail the error I get cause I think

问题 I'm doing a practical assignment for university and I've run into a problem. I've got a class that declares this method: bool graficarTablero(const Tablero *&tablero, const string &nombreArchivo); I want to pass a pointer to an object Tablero by constant reference. If I call that function like, say for example: ArchivoGrafico *grafico = new ArchivoGrafico; if(grafico->graficarTablero(tablero, ARCHIVO_GRAFICO)){ ... ...I get compilation errors. Ok, I won't detail the error I get cause I think

问题 I noticed the other day that - while altering values in a hash - that when you dereference a hash in Perl, you actually are making a copy of that hash. To confirm I wrote this quick little script: #! perl use warnings; use strict; my %h = (); my $hRef = \%h; my %h2 = %{$hRef}; my $h2Ref = \%h2; if($hRef eq $h2Ref) { print "\n\tThey're the same $hRef $h2Ref"; } else { print "\n\tThey're NOT the same $hRef $h2Ref"; } print "\n\n"; The output: They're NOT the same HASH(0x10ff6848) HASH

问题 I noticed the other day that - while altering values in a hash - that when you dereference a hash in Perl, you actually are making a copy of that hash. To confirm I wrote this quick little script: #! perl use warnings; use strict; my %h = (); my $hRef = \%h; my %h2 = %{$hRef}; my $h2Ref = \%h2; if($hRef eq $h2Ref) { print "\n\tThey're the same $hRef $h2Ref"; } else { print "\n\tThey're NOT the same $hRef $h2Ref"; } print "\n\n"; The output: They're NOT the same HASH(0x10ff6848) HASH

问题 Does anybody have any reference material that details Cauchy-Reed algorithm? Googling for Cauchy-Reed Solomon results cleversafe.org. Although they have an open sourced product based on Cauchy Reed-Solomon code, they haven't provided any material explaining how the algorithm works. 回答1: Professor James Plank at UT (of the east) has a nice explanation and an efficient implentation. 来源： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/252555/how-does-cauchy-reed-solomon-algorithm-work

问题 I want to use the object's reference value as a key into a dictionary, as opposed to a copy of value of the object. So, I essentially want to store an object associated with a particular instance of another object in a dictionary and retrieve that value later. Is this possible? Is it completely against the idea of NSDictionary? I can tell that I am probably approaching this the wrong way because the dictionary wants me to implement NSCopying on the object itself, which doesn't really make

问题 I've go a very simple question, but unfortunately I can't figure the answer myself. Suppose I've got some data structure that holds settings and acts like a settings map. I have a GetValue(const std::string& name) method, that returns the corresponding value. Now I'm trying to figure out - what kind of return-value approach would be better. The obvious one means making my method act like std::string GetValue(const std::string& name) const and return a copy of the object and rely on RVO in

问题 I know that holding pointers incurs the overhead of an extra dereference operation but it saves me including the (potentially large) header file that contains the definition of my struct. However my preference is to be determined by the advantage of having a std::vector<myStruct> *ptr2Vect member. Namely, not having to call delete on each element. How big a performance advantage is this? Can vector really allocate objects on the stack? I am fairly new to template classes and wonder if it