You're invoking the makeChicken() method on the class type Chef. You want to invoke it on the chicken instance.
P.S. Also, you probably shouldn't name your chef "chicken". Maybe "chef" would be a...
Type: Posts; User: antred
You're invoking the makeChicken() method on the class type Chef. You want to invoke it on the chicken instance.
P.S. Also, you probably shouldn't name your chef "chicken". Maybe "chef" would be a...
void setName(string nameofCourse){
nameofCourse = name
}
Shouldn't this be:
void setName(string nameofCourse){
Additionally, the precise nature of the output files may also depend on what compiler you're using. Code Block is not a compiler; it's an IDE that can work with almost any compiler under the sun.
You made a tiny but important typo there. I think you meant:
tmp.b += s2;
return tmp;
That was sarcasm, yes? If so, you'd best say so or else someone might read your post and actually believe it. :p
By all means, you should follow Eylsia's advice and use RAII (RAII) to manage your resources. Avoid doing it manually where ever possible. But to get back to your potential leak. If you still suspect...
Well, yeah, but wouldn't a higher level language essentially do the same thing? Seeing as the smallest addressable unit is always a byte, they too would have to operate on bytes rather than on...
What do you mean by that? Aren't bitwise operators in C++ good enough?
Go back and fix it, I'll edit the quote. :0
A valid point. There may be a reason why the OP really has to use the Win-API directly, but more likely than not he's probably just not aware that there are superior alternatives. There's very little...
Only programmers could debate so hard over something so trivial. :p
I wasn't aware of that. :) Then again, isn't this really just an extension of the other rule, since the base class part of a derived class is sort of a member of it, too?
EDIT: Ok, I was really...
Which is also the only difference between a class and a struct, just to mention it. :)
Holy crap, now I wish I hadn't. :o
Not to mention that the time()-function referred to by WalterP does exactly nothing to solve the OP's problem.
If you're actually worried about not being able to quickly glance where a local variable is initialized, that's a sure indicator that your function is too long. Time for some refactoring. Break it...
It's just a typedef, usually for std::size_t, which in turn is usually just a typedef for unsigned int.
I suppose it might be possible by using some bit-shifting trickery (maybe not ... I haven't really thought about it).
Well, apparently this is going to be changed for C++14, as the overloads taking 4 iterators instead of 3 all have a little "since C++14" next to them on cppreference.com.
is_permuation
EDIT: In other words, it is assumed that the 2nd sequence has the same length as the first.
By the way, at the moment you're declaring all variables used in your main function at the top of the function. Don't do that. That isn't the C++ way, in fact it's not even the modern C way anymore....
That depends entirely on what GUI-Framework you're using. MFC will do this differently than Qt, which in turn does it differently than wxWidgets, etc.
Um, yeah, I'm aware of that. That's the whole point of me suggesting that he use std::lock_guard instead of doing it manually. :p
Ah, ok. Sorry, didn't read through the entire thread (it's rather long). :)
Hate to quote myself, but apparently I can no longer edit my post. Obviously I meant what happens if something throws an exception after you've locked the mutex but before you've unlocked it?