IIRC in C++98 when you return objects from function by value, a temporary object is created using a copy constructor on whatever you've passed as an argument to the return statement. Then the function's stack is unwinded. Then if the return value is used in the above scope, the temporary object is passed to whatever function uses it (copy constructor, assignment operator or a function that takes a reference to the object). Then the temporary object is destroyed just before control returns to the parent function.
At no point can you have a destructor call that isn't paired up with a completed constructor call. Failing that, the compiler is simply non-standard and is out of the domain of what is actually called C++. C++ explicitly states that a destructor is called only for objects for which at least one constructor had completed execution successfully (exceptions in the constructor, for instance prevent that from being true).
If an object is returned by value, then the return address is captured for the callee stack frame, the returned object is placed at that address and is NOT destroyed once the function's scope finishes, instead it's scoped to to be destroyed in the caller's stack frame. This can be done by copying an object from the current frame into the parent (initialze space in caller, construct a local in callee, copy local to caller, destroy local, caller destroys result), but is often optimized away to build the object directly in the calling function stack (callee constructs directly in caller's scope, caller destroys, skipping the temporary construct/destroy cycle entierly).
You don't need scifi to understand the problem even. It's so stupidly simple it's sad. The word is context, and policy cannot handle it from a fundamental perspective.
As one on the recieving end of such treatment, all I can say is thank you for seeing the light. As I'm constantly able to use my "free" time to do research on random subjects, more often than I tend to read about different aspects of what I'm tasked on. Each day brings new insight as a result. This allows me to constantly be a number of steps ahead on my approach on each new project. It is a balancing act, and you have to be careful not to over do it, but having the freedom to make such decisions had been invaluable to me as a tool of self improvement. I would even say it had worked for me to do this whenever a mental break was required. A 5 minute read on an equally important though currently unrelated topic is enough time to step away from a problem to refresh yourself and see it in a slightly new way. Our greatest mistake is to treat human beings as machines and expect them to thrive.
It isn't the activity that's being banned that's the issue, it's the fact that such a ban is allowed to happen. It can become extreeme sports. Then it can be basketball, then riding your bike to work, all because it's "risky behaviour" and has "potential for self harm". It's absurd!
Ok... I'll spell it out then. Doing anything and everything you please is not practical what-so-ever. Specifically, telling/forcing people to do things your way. No human being has a natural right to that aspect of another human being's life, be it an emperor, king, president, teacher, or parent. Such interactions must rely on concent and practical necessity. A parent offers a roof and a meal in exchange for good behaviour (a bit of an over simplification to point out that an exchange is taking place even when it comes to families). A president offers an army, etc... You cannot go around hitting people because you feel like it, because you will have a mob chase your ass down. By the very nature of the situation we, human beings, find ourselves in (the human condition, if you will), it's questionable whether we're doing ourselves any favours by having such laws. It's compounded by the fact that while we have evidence that tobaccoo has harmful effects, that it's still a drop in the ocean compared to what we are exposed to throughout life. I whole heartedly reject that this is justified based on the merits of the situation. This is people poking their noses into what they have absolutely no business poking their noses into, and I hope they end up sticking into a shit pile for it.
Are you for real?? This is a serious question? Even IF what you suggest is true, there's still no data on what the specific differences *are*. Your personal haphazard observations are statistically insignificant. We have a long way to go before we can even define what a human is to begin with, let alone what the variants truly are. Stop being stupid, you'll live happier.
Slashdot Mirror
At no point can you have a destructor call that isn't paired up with a completed constructor call. Failing that, the compiler is simply non-standard and is out of the domain of what is actually called C++. C++ explicitly states that a destructor is called only for objects for which at least one constructor had completed execution successfully (exceptions in the constructor, for instance prevent that from being true).
If an object is returned by value, then the return address is captured for the callee stack frame, the returned object is placed at that address and is NOT destroyed once the function's scope finishes, instead it's scoped to to be destroyed in the caller's stack frame. This can be done by copying an object from the current frame into the parent (initialze space in caller, construct a local in callee, copy local to caller, destroy local, caller destroys result), but is often optimized away to build the object directly in the calling function stack (callee constructs directly in caller's scope, caller destroys, skipping the temporary construct/destroy cycle entierly).
You don't need scifi to understand the problem even. It's so stupidly simple it's sad. The word is context, and policy cannot handle it from a fundamental perspective.
You're obviously doing something right!
As one on the recieving end of such treatment, all I can say is thank you for seeing the light. As I'm constantly able to use my "free" time to do research on random subjects, more often than I tend to read about different aspects of what I'm tasked on. Each day brings new insight as a result. This allows me to constantly be a number of steps ahead on my approach on each new project. It is a balancing act, and you have to be careful not to over do it, but having the freedom to make such decisions had been invaluable to me as a tool of self improvement. I would even say it had worked for me to do this whenever a mental break was required. A 5 minute read on an equally important though currently unrelated topic is enough time to step away from a problem to refresh yourself and see it in a slightly new way. Our greatest mistake is to treat human beings as machines and expect them to thrive.
They don't really have the right *know* this about me in the first place.
one can support abortion, gunrights, but not the death penalty. mind blown?
It isn't the activity that's being banned that's the issue, it's the fact that such a ban is allowed to happen. It can become extreeme sports. Then it can be basketball, then riding your bike to work, all because it's "risky behaviour" and has "potential for self harm". It's absurd!
Ok... I'll spell it out then. Doing anything and everything you please is not practical what-so-ever. Specifically, telling/forcing people to do things your way. No human being has a natural right to that aspect of another human being's life, be it an emperor, king, president, teacher, or parent. Such interactions must rely on concent and practical necessity. A parent offers a roof and a meal in exchange for good behaviour (a bit of an over simplification to point out that an exchange is taking place even when it comes to families). A president offers an army, etc... You cannot go around hitting people because you feel like it, because you will have a mob chase your ass down. By the very nature of the situation we, human beings, find ourselves in (the human condition, if you will), it's questionable whether we're doing ourselves any favours by having such laws. It's compounded by the fact that while we have evidence that tobaccoo has harmful effects, that it's still a drop in the ocean compared to what we are exposed to throughout life. I whole heartedly reject that this is justified based on the merits of the situation. This is people poking their noses into what they have absolutely no business poking their noses into, and I hope they end up sticking into a shit pile for it.
It's not about a right to do anything and everything you please, it's about the lack of the rights of others to stop you.
Never mind... i'm an idiot :). yeah a bit. Oh well.
This is curious, what is referncing 'self' here?
I'm not sure what you mean.
And added nothing of value.
New*
Now level of stupid achieved. Good for you.
It just rolls off the tongue.
If that's the indicator of obama's mental capacity, I really wonder about georgy boy...
Have you peaked to make sure it's not a 13 year old boy?
Are you for real?? This is a serious question? Even IF what you suggest is true, there's still no data on what the specific differences *are*. Your personal haphazard observations are statistically insignificant. We have a long way to go before we can even define what a human is to begin with, let alone what the variants truly are. Stop being stupid, you'll live happier.
I suppose I can flex a bit to get it :). Sorry for ruining the pun :P. I guess?
Something is off with your calibaration. "in our own solar system" is right there, in the second sentence.
And we all know, it's those damn pigments that are at fault here. Right? Is that your point?
In soviet russia... In korea, only old people...
Ahh forget the whole thing.
Sometimes, as in these times, the end state is simply non-existent until the dissatisfaction reaches the tipping point.