And I have no idea how to check for nulls in an address-of situation. Regular pointers? Sure, but whenever I try if(!impl) or some other more convoluted variation of that, MSVC screams about invalid operators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B_reference#Relationship_to_pointers While pointers can be made invalid through a variety of mechanisms, ranging from carrying a null value to out-of-bounds arithmetic to illegal casts to producing them from random integers, a reference only becomes invalid in two cases:
* If it refers to an object with automatic allocation which goes out of scope,
* If it refers to an object inside a block of dynamic memory which has been freed.
The first is easy to detect automatically if the reference has static scoping, but is still a problem if the reference is a member of a dynamically allocated object; the second is more difficult to assure. These are the only concern with references, and are suitably addressed by a reasonable allocation policy.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-24 4:01
References are by definition not allowed to be NULL. If this happens, your design is broken.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-24 4:07
Just use regular pointers and check/deref them explicitly.
Pointers that basically dereference automatically are a little confusing.
>>7
Seconded. Valgrind (specifically memcheck) may be the single-greatest debugging tool ever created.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-24 11:30
>>8
Xcode's fix-and-continue ranks pretty high up there, though.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-24 15:35
Thing is, it's not my code. I'm modding Second Life in order to bypass hardware bans, and >>1 is fresh out of their trunk SVN. This is released software, too, so I don't get wtf is going on.
Compiling with Visual C++ 2005 Express since cross-compiling on Lunix fails for some reason.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-24 15:37
Have you considered that impl.mProcessTimer might be null?
Old Infected Mushroom is definitely psytrance — that is, everything before ``IM the Supervisor'' (or ``Converting Vegetarians'' disc 2 if you want to be a bit more pessimistic). Nowadays they seem to be trying to make psychedelic pop.
Sincerely,
Someone who was listening to goa and psychedelic trance years before you fags found it on the internet
>>27
No literate person can enjoy Infected Mushroom.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-26 1:50
>>30
I PROGRAM IN C# WHILE LISTENING TO INFECTED MUSHROOM BECAUSE IT MAKES ME FEEL 1337
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-26 2:06
I enjoy Infected Mushroom. So go fuck yourself >>30.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-26 10:33
>>32
Wake me up before I change again
Remind me the story that I won´t get insane
Tell me why it´s always the same
Explain me the reason why I´m so much in pain
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-26 10:37
>>33
THESE WOUND WON'T SEEM TO HEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-26 10:41
>>32
And you are illiterate. My point has been proved.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-26 19:28
My point has been proved.
You should be using the present perfect there. With such poor grammar skills on your part, I don't see how you are in the position to determine the literacy of others.
Maybe you should check your dictionary before spouting ignorant nonsense.
For complex historical reasons, [b]prove[b] developed two past participles: proved and proven. Both are correct and can be used more or less interchangeably: : this hasn't been proved yet;: this hasn't been proven yet. Proven is the more common form when used as an adjective before the noun it modifies: : a proven talent (not : a proved talent). Otherwise, the choice between : proved and : proven is not a matter of correctness, but usually of sound and rhythm—and often, consequently, a matter of familiarity, as in the legal idiom : innocent until proven guilty.