> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:00:59 -0500, Daniel T. wrote:

> Here is one of the solutions I came up with. Note especially how easy
> the "count_if" line is. "count_if... size_greater_than( 3 )" makes a lot
> of sense grammatically. Also note that I didn't make a separate
> 'make_plural' function. It is not that easy to pluralize a word so I
> tend to do it on a case-by-case basis.
>
> struct size_greater_than : unary_function< string, bool >
> {
> size_t x;
> size_greater_than( size_t x ): x( x ) { }
> bool operator()( const string& s ) const {
> return s.size() > x;
> }
> };

>
> it always outputs this:
>
> [arnuld@arch programs]$ ls
> 10.01.cpp 11.09.cpp 11.09.cpp~ 11.09_using-std-input.cpp a.out post.txt
> [arnuld@arch programs]$ ./a.out <10.01.cpp
> No input file ?
> [arnuld@arch programs]$ ./a.out < 10.01.cpp
> No input file ?
> [arnuld@arch programs]$ ./a.out
> No input file ?
> [arnuld@arch programs]$ cat 10.01.cpp | ./a.out
> No input file ?
> [arnuld@arch programs]$

> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:25:43 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

> case default:
> {
> cerr << "Usage: plingplong [FILENAME]" << endl;
> return EXIT_FAILURE;
> }
> }

> why have i to bracket the second ctor param in the following example?

> #include
> #include

> int main()
> {
> std::ifstream file(__FILE__);
>
> if (file.is_open())
> {
> noskipws(file);
> std::string text(std::istream_iterator(file),
> (std::istream_iterator())); // extra brackets here
> }
> }

> Hello everyone,
>
>
> I am reading some code from other people, there are some code like
> this,
>
> [Code]
> class Foo {
>
> };
>
> Foo& func()
> {
> Foo foo;
> return foo;
> }
>
> int main()
> { ...

> Hello everyone,
>
> I am reading some code from other people, there are some code like
> this,
>
> [Code]
> class Foo {
>
> };
>
> Foo& func()
> {
> Foo foo;
> return foo;
>
> }
>
> int main()
> { ...

> On 2007-12-15 04:36:30 -0500, tragomaskhalos
> logicacmg.com> said:
>

>> OK, my original reply wasn't detailed enough.
>> Others have said that this is UB but you are quite correctly
>> still wondering why it happend to work with your compiler.
>> The key is that the compiler is likely producing code something akin
>> to this:

>
> Maybe. Speculating about why something whose behavior is undefined
> happens to do what a naive programmer guessed it would do is generally
> pointless. Undefined means undefined. Nothing more. The reason that it
> "works" is pure accident. (That's the screed for beginning and
> intermediate programmers.)
>