[9fans] I like this one

[9fans] I like this one

[ron minnich]

new w/gcc 4.3:
"- The |constructor| and |destructor| function attributes now accept
optional priority arguments which control the order in which the
constructor and destructor functions are run."

woo hoo! Now is that signed? What's the precision? 32 bits? Or can it
be floating point?

"I want priority 5! you get 6, dammit!"

"Just take 2pi as your priority. But I get e."

Sorry, more flame bait, but this is just too funny.

ron

Re: [9fans] I like this one

[andrey mirtchovski]

the optional argument is obviously a text description of the desired
priority level (e.g., "superbad!", or "not in a big hurry, care for a
spot of  tea?") accompanied by an optional justification in 150 words
or less.

support for interpretive dance descriptions to follow in the next release :p

Re: [9fans] I like this one

[Pietro Gagliardi]

I don't get it... But why would you control how constructors are run?

On Jan 29, 2008, at 4:57 PM, andrey mirtchovski wrote:

> the optional argument is obviously a text description of the desired
> priority level (e.g., "superbad!", or "not in a big hurry, care for a
> spot of  tea?") accompanied by an optional justification in 150 words
> or less.
>
> support for interpretive dance descriptions to follow in the next  
> release :p

Re: [9fans] I like this one

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 17:11 -0500, Pietro Gagliardi wrote:
> I don't get it... But why would you control how constructors are run?

  You don't unless you're totally worried about your job security and
would want to make maintenance of your code code virtually
impossible. ;-) C++ at least was smart enough not to promise anything
about the sequencing of constructors for global objects.

  Now, I can bet money that the reason they did it is for shared
libraries. And that opens up a whole new can of worms right there.

Thanks,
Roman.

Re: [9fans] I like this one

[Bakul Shah]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:29:29 PST Roman Shaposhnik <rvs@sun.com>  wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 17:11 -0500, Pietro Gagliardi wrote:
> > I don't get it... But why would you control how constructors are run?

To give programmers enough rope and then some to hang
themselves?

>   You don't unless you're totally worried about your job security and
> would want to make maintenance of your code code virtually
> impossible. ;-) C++ at least was smart enough not to promise anything
> about the sequencing of constructors for global objects.
> 
>   Now, I can bet money that the reason they did it is for shared
> libraries. And that opens up a whole new can of worms right there.

I was very briefly exposed to stuff like the following (to be
compiled with Microsoft's C++ compiler).


#if	defined(_LIB)
#define XXX_API
#elif 	defined(_XXX_EXPORTS)
#define XXX_API __declspec(dllexport)
#else
#define XXX_API __declspec(dllimport)
#endif

class XXX_API foo {
	...
}

With stuff like this if you choose the wrong magic in your
Visual Studio project files, _bad_ things happen! I am still
having nightmares. I'd rather have a root canal treatment.