Is this a good pattern: replacing a long function with a series of lambdas?

I recently run into the following situation.

Is this a good pattern: replacing a long function with a series of lambdas?

I recently run into the following situation.

Is it bad form to break out of Range-based for

I have a range-based for that operates over a std::vector of objects (items), like so:

Is it bad form to break out of Range-based for

I have a range-based for that operates over a std::vector of objects (items), like so:

operator”” in modern C++

I took an example I found on-line whereby a constexpr of the form _binary could be evaluated at compile time as an unsigned long long and then I tried to generalize it for any base from 2 to 36. For instance, 17b1234_baseChange would be evaluated from base 17 as ((1*17 +2)*17 + 3)*17 + 4 = 5624.

Polymorphic template container: shared_ptr vs reference_wrapper

Assuming we have two classes:

c++11 random: why different range of int and real?

In the c++11, we now have <random> to produce random number.
About uniform distributions, we have following int_distribution and double_distribution:

c++11 random: why different range of int and real?

In the c++11, we now have <random> to produce random number.
About uniform distributions, we have following int_distribution and double_distribution:

Const means Thread-safe? [closed]

Closed 8 years ago.

Avoiding std::forward and Rvalue References

I recently read the Google C++ Style Guide and especially one part catched my eye.