|
|
For comparison, here[^] is the deleted one.
|
|
|
|
|
This is by no means an isolated incident, and there is not much you can do apart from adding comments and votes with your opinion.
One of these days I'm going to think of a really clever signature.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, you can also report it as being misleading by using the red flag.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe it is misleading in that sense; it's just not a very good article.
One of these days I'm going to think of a really clever signature.
|
|
|
|
|
I dont really know C++ well enough to comment on that. You could downvote the article, but you can also flag the article if you find it appropriate, that was my only point 
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you; that is possible on any article awaiting approval. I'm just not sure why Espen has singled this one out when there are plenty of badly written submissions posted here.
One of these days I'm going to think of a really clever signature.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Espen has singled this one out
Proberbly becouse a simular article by the same person was deleted before, but that is just my guess.
Quote: is possible on any article awaiting approval
You can do it on published articles also.
|
|
|
|
|
I know the history of this article and I also know how, why and when one can vote. My comment was directed at why Espen has got excited about this particular posting, when so many poorly structured articles still get past the reviewers on a fairly regular basis.
One of these days I'm going to think of a really clever signature.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps due to the fact that many members could approve an article and make it live. I agree that there are articles that border on misleading, but a simple comments should suffice in the circumstance, after all they may provide many useful articles leater. I guess that there is an advantage for everyone to allow more articles to be printed on the site and the voting would say something on how valid they are to outsiders.
So I guess that I agree with you...
|
|
|
|
|
Given the number of articles this author has created previously, I don't think he needs to go through the approval process.
|
|
|
|
|
 I dont get it, what and who are we talking about here?
|
|
|
|
|
The author of the article that has Espenn all hot and bothered has already written 14 articles. I don't think his articles go into the pile.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, I see, little slow today, sorry  I any case I see that the article is deleted now. But I somethimes find it hard to judge if an article should be approved or not, but the guidelines specify that if the author has done his best, you should approve it. Misleading articles might be harder to identify..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read it, Pete, just read it ... I'm not saying that everything Ladislav has written is rubbish, I've even upvoted him, but this article presents material that is plain wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Espenn - I tried to read it, honestly I did, but the formatting threw me so much that I gave up. I appreciate that English isn't his first language but, even taking that into account, I couldn't follow it because paragraph breaks happened in odd places.
|
|
|
|
|
Find the section starting with I call it Hurray stl vector<everything> trend.
Do you want destructors to be called on an object when a pointer to that object goes out of scope?
shared_ptr provides something resembling this functionality at the library level.
|
|
|
|
|
Espen Harlinn wrote: Do you want destructors to be called on an object when a pointer to that object
goes out of scope?
I'm still confused by this article. Is he stating that he wants the language to cope with this by default? Is he asking for some form of reference counted/garbage collected tidy up?
When I was coding C++ (a long time ago I grant you), I rarely saw a need for the language to do this - there are too many edge cases where a non-determenistic delete could cause you problems. With a little bit of discipline, it's very easy to ensure that you tidy up (that and a couple of handy macros to write out the address of the object when it was created, and the address when it was deleted - if there's a mismatch in the count, you know that you may have a leak and you know which object it is).
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Is he stating that he wants the language to cope with this by default? Is he
asking for some form of reference counted/garbage collected tidy up?
That seems to be the case.
The next release of the C++ standard is scheduled for 2017, and I don't think we'll see many changes to the language. We're probably going to add constructs supporting parallel programming and perhaps concepts. I also expect that we'll see some clarifications related to the current standard.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm, I would be against seeing that in the language by default. As you say, why add to the language when there are other ways that you could do this - and more importantly, as these methods don't rely on the standards ratification process, you can ship them ahead of the standard.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: these methods don't rely on the standards ratification process, you can ship them ahead of the standard
This is how stuff usually makes it into the standard ...
|
|
|
|
|
I see it's been deleted, again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've just asked him why he keeps deleting and reposting the same article. We all know the reason why, but it will be interesting to see what he has to say.
From what I read there, it's not an improvement on the original version.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
