Click here to Skip to main content
15,561,685 members

Comments by «_Superman_» (Top 84 by date)

«_Superman_» 4-Jul-18 22:36pm View    
>> Is this because it is like writing:
>> list1.operator=(list2.operator=(list3.operator=(list4)))
That is correct.

>>But the insert method doesnt take p_itr as a parameter so it can not modify it, it takes a value pointed to by p_itr.
I was referring to what could be done with pre-processor macros like in this link - The OFFSETOF() macro - GeeksforGeeks[^]
But it probably does not apply here. You could try and debug the code to check what is actually happening.

>>Is operator=(const Player& other); a valid definition
In C++ it is not. In C, int is assumed as the return type if nothing is specified.
However this defeats the purpose since you're trying to make a copy of the object, unless you have a single integer argument conversion constructor.
«_Superman_» 6-Oct-17 0:58am View    
I executed your code and got the output given below.
What is your question?

Enter the coordinates of point 1: 2.3
Enter the coordinates of point 2: 6.7

The slope of the line is = 0.93182

The slope intercept form is: y = 0.93182x + 2.35682
«_Superman_» 4-Oct-17 4:43am View    
Definitely yes. But std::sort is tried and tested. Who knows how it is going to be optimized in future. Having said that, after experimenting, if the performance makes a huge difference, then would definitely get rid of std::sort.
«_Superman_» 4-Oct-17 4:34am View    
I agree. For this case iterating once over the list would indeed be the fastest.
«_Superman_» 4-Oct-17 4:23am View    
I would still prefer sort to having if conditions inside a loop.