Justin

"void Graph::DFS(std::function<void(int)>&& action);" Any reason for this rather than const std::function<void(int)>& action?

Might have just been bumped to the front page because of the first answer, but I wanted to know if there was something special going on

Anyone know why this old popularity-contest of mine on Approximating a Bell Curve has been receiving a number of answers today/yesterday?

Dang I can't get my idea for the CnR problem to work. I wanted to make it so you had to use something obscure from the standard, but it turns out that you can simply use something pretty obvious. Maybe I should just post it

Okay, time to make a meta post about the ambiguity

When handling chat spam flags, what does "valid" vs "invalid" mean? 1: The flag is valid/invalid. 2: The message is valid/invalid

@JanDvorak I know, but I'm talking about for an answer for the CnR challenge

@Justin except the problem being that there'd have to be non-standard behavior / undefined behavior, but I want to, e.g. say you can't use __attribute__ and other gcc extensions

Would it be valid to restrict the language to, say, standard c++ (no extensions)?

@Justin Found the answer. Yes it is valid

I'm looking at the new CnR challenge and I'm thinking about posting a submission. Is it valid for the 2nd snippet to exit abnormally (I can fix it, but I'm curious)?

I drop by to upvote low voted answers, and I post answers every now and then.

@Mendeleev ? Anything wrong with that?

@Christopher No hard feelings. I don't even know you (on ppcg). It's been a long time since I was actively active on ppcg

Or I guess I could just put it on the active list because I do visit occasionally, likely more than once every 60 days

The thing is that it's for the same thing, so if it's split, it might not be as clear that there's actually more rep on the line

@EinkornEnchanter In the Q you mean? The "Offered bounties by ..."? Except I'm a passive member.... But as long as I get notified, I'd definitely award the bounty

Okay, makes sense

@EinkornEnchanter I guess the question is, should I edit it into the answer and the question in addition to a comment?

Does a comment on one of the answers suffice?

On the List of bounties with no notification, how do I add to someone's proposed bounty?

Dang, this chat is relatively dead

@200_success Exactly what happened

Yeah that's what I meant, is I think it should be featured until the end of the contest. @200_success could maybe renew it?

codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8442/… is no longer featured

@Mast Yeah, but I was under the impression that minimal questions are still valid. There's kind of a default implied question for questions on this site. I think it would be better with more text explaining the question, but it is still reviewable...

@Mast Why is it awful?

But isn't it better to improve the previous question rather than post a new one?

User edited a post, making a future post duplicate of original. Currently, this is an exact duplicate of this

Well, gn. I can sleep now this is resolved. Ty all

@Heslacher Nice. Good bot, Duga

@Vogel612 does Duga notice when the edit is by rejecting a suggested edit after the suggested edit is approved? Because that might be why Duga didn't notice

Doesn't look like pseudocode, though. And I misunderstood what the user had meant about abbreviating the code

Ty though

I didn't notice it was edited again until the user pinged me a few minutes ago

@Vogel612 the question

I should be sleeping, but instead I'm salty over this bad question edit. Xkcd applies well here

Hooray for users invalidating parts of answers with code edits \o/ /s

@Duga Actual answer invalidation...

But if you want it to be perfect and have optimal performance, it's pretty difficult to get right.

I guess my point is that it's easy if you don't worry about it being perfect

It is possible to make it so that max(myInteger, 2, 3) creates a compile error, though.

Unfortunately, it's not really possible to design a completely robust max function for all reasonable use cases that doesn't require the user to be careful in order to avoid obscure bugs.

Yes

IMO a max function should take its parameters by value because you avoid the hairy problems altogether and because it will mostly be only used for integral values, which should be trivially copyable/movable. And then you don't get bugs from max(myInteger, 2, 3)

I know there are edge cases. I've done a lot of template metaprogramming as well. But it's not hairy. It's simple enough to just write something and fix it when necessary.

Yes that's what { ... } does.

@Incomputable It's easy enough to fix that; you could just do a static_assert in the function.

@Incomputable Recursive version, iterative version

@Incomputable It's not a good idea in general to take the parameters by reference because it becomes incredibly easy to get dangling references. Notice that even std::max with an initializer list does not. Other things: "no recursion version" is not needed at all. With literally any level of optimization, the exact same assembly is generated. My point was that it's not too much work to write an n-ary max function as long as you kind of understand how templates work; you don't need tons of metaprogramming ability. Creating a perfect function is usually unneeded.