User talk:Mikael.s.persson - Revision history

Daviddoria at 10:36, 21 July 2011

2011-07-21T10:36:49Z

2011-07-21T00:41:03Z

‎auto

2011-07-20T21:20:13Z

2011-04-06T14:22:11Z

2011-04-06T14:15:56Z

2010-12-01T12:32:19Z

Created page with 'Mikael, Thank you for the contributions! Please keep up the good work! ~~~~'

New page

Mikael,

Thank you for the contributions! Please keep up the good work!

[[User:Daviddoria|Daviddoria]] 12:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:36, 21 July 2011
Line 18:		Line 18:
	David,		David,
	These were examples from the C++0x section. That's why I made them a bit more C++0x-like. By the way, there might be additions to this section as we might be preparing a set of C++0x tutorials, for Daniweb.[[User:Mikael.s.persson\|Mikael]]		These were examples from the C++0x section. That's why I made them a bit more C++0x-like. By the way, there might be additions to this section as we might be preparing a set of C++0x tutorials, for Daniweb.[[User:Mikael.s.persson\|Mikael]]
		+
		+	Ohhh great then! haha. Great about the DaniWeb tutorials! Feel free to host them here. [[User:Daviddoria\|Daviddoria]] 10:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:41, 21 July 2011
Line 15:		Line 15:

	I saw that you converted a couple of examples to use 'auto'. Isn't this a c++0x thing? If it is, I think we should leave it explicit so that it will work for everyone, but add a comment and the line you added as a comment about how this is the "new way" to do things. What do you think? [[User:Daviddoria\|Daviddoria]] 21:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)		I saw that you converted a couple of examples to use 'auto'. Isn't this a c++0x thing? If it is, I think we should leave it explicit so that it will work for everyone, but add a comment and the line you added as a comment about how this is the "new way" to do things. What do you think? [[User:Daviddoria\|Daviddoria]] 21:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	David,
		+	These were examples from the C++0x section. That's why I made them a bit more C++0x-like. By the way, there might be additions to this section as we might be preparing a set of C++0x tutorials, for Daniweb.[[User:Mikael.s.persson\|Mikael]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:20, 20 July 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	== Thanks ==
	Mikael,		Mikael,

Line 9:		Line 10:

	auto_ptr is deprecated by unique_ptr, that's all. Mike.		auto_ptr is deprecated by unique_ptr, that's all. Mike.
		+
		+	== auto ==
		+	Mikael,
		+
		+	I saw that you converted a couple of examples to use 'auto'. Isn't this a c++0x thing? If it is, I think we should leave it explicit so that it will work for everyone, but add a comment and the line you added as a comment about how this is the "new way" to do things. What do you think? [[User:Daviddoria\|Daviddoria]] 21:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:22, 6 April 2011
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Hi Mike,		Hi Mike,
	I saw you changed std::auto_ptr to std::unique_ptr. Could you explain the difference? Or show the difference in one or more examples? [[User:Daviddoria\|Daviddoria]] 14:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)		I saw you changed std::auto_ptr to std::unique_ptr. Could you explain the difference? Or show the difference in one or more examples? [[User:Daviddoria\|Daviddoria]] 14:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	auto_ptr is deprecated by unique_ptr, that's all. Mike.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:15, 6 April 2011
Line 4:		Line 4:

	[[User:Daviddoria\|Daviddoria]] 12:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)		[[User:Daviddoria\|Daviddoria]] 12:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	Hi Mike,
		+	I saw you changed std::auto_ptr to std::unique_ptr. Could you explain the difference? Or show the difference in one or more examples? [[User:Daviddoria\|Daviddoria]] 14:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)