Why is it wrong to access the fun() function this way?

Why is it wrong to access the fun() function this way?

Why is it wrong to access the fun() function this way?

I’m looking at some C++ code that currently passes an int* array that can be null and does some logic. Let’s say it’s of the following form:

I always thought that when I converted a member function ptr in C to a member function ptr in A, I just had to make sure that the call was pointing to an C entity , but that was a mistake. Does the standard describe this use case in more detail?(checked with multiple compilers)

I was surprised that std::numeric_limits<std::byte>::digits returns 0, when I was expecting 8. I believe this is due to lacking specialization for std::byte hence defaulting to the, well, default implementation that return 0 in this case.

I’m dealing with a vendor-provided C-library (let’s call it foo), that offers a multitude of API-calls. All of these functions take a (pre-initialized) handle (of type FOOHandle) and return 0 on success, and some other number on failure. In the latter case, the caller can call the foo_get_errmsg() to get the textual description of the error saved in his own buffer. Nothing too unusual.

entity::entity cannot access private member declared in class “Entity”

Closed 6 days ago.

Closed 6 days ago.