Random Chitchat 2012-2016 - Printable Version +- Cuberite Forum (https://forum.cuberite.org) +-- Forum: Off Topic (https://forum.cuberite.org/forum-9.html) +--- Forum: Off Topic Discussion (https://forum.cuberite.org/forum-10.html) +--- Thread: Random Chitchat 2012-2016 (/thread-434.html) Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
|
RE: What we're doing - worktycho - 09-11-2014 Would anyone object if I use explicit template instantiation? RE: What we're doing - tigerw - 09-11-2014 Flame war? Here's a suggestion for a suitable weapon: RE: What we're doing - xoft - 09-11-2014 (09-11-2014, 03:19 AM)worktycho Wrote: Would anyone object if I use explicit template instantiation? I'm not exactly sure what that means, simple example perhaps? Will it compile in MSVC2008? RE: What we're doing - worktycho - 09-11-2014 simple example: header file Code: template <class T> code file Code: template <class T> If Foo is only used for a few values of T then by explicitly instantiating the template we can move the template implementation to separate translation unit. I want to use this to allow testing code to replace types with Mocks without having to make everything inline. As to will it work on MSVC, that depends on how buggy it is . It was in c++98. If MSVC refuses to compile it then microsoft have a workaround that involves an anonymous namespace, a static function and some code. RE: What we're doing - xoft - 09-11-2014 Looks okay to me, a bit on the weird side, templates in cpp files, but it makes some sense. Go ahead. RE: What we're doing - xoft - 09-11-2014 So I had to use the first dynamic_cast<> in MCS The cDropSpenserEntity class inherits from two bases and so it cannot be C-style-cast to the second base class. This had broken the redstone simulator on droppers, I wonder why no-one noticed earlier. RE: What we're doing - worktycho - 09-11-2014 This keeps reinforcing my point that we need unit tests, particularly for the redstone simulator. I should be ably to decouple it a little more easily with explicit instanciations. I may be able to get rid of the dynamic_cast if I do that. RE: What we're doing - worktycho - 09-12-2014 C++14 has been ratified. So can we start using it in 2017/2018? RE: What we're doing - worktycho - 09-12-2014 Just got a very weird error message. It appears that if you have a template with a parameter of type char clang assumes that the parameter is a char so helpfully displays the ASCII character rather than the code. Which lead to an error message talking about a missing template specialisation for block type 'M' RE: What we're doing - bearbin - 09-13-2014 We have now reached 7000 commits! |