HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Related talk from cppcon: https://youtu.be/lkgszkPnV8g

I'm a big fan of Scott Meyer's Effective C++. It's a little dated now, but it was the most valuable book I'd ever read on the language.

Louis Brandy's Curiously Recurring Bugs at Facebook presentation from CppCon17 has somewhat of the same feeling, though it only covers a few bugs: https://youtu.be/lkgszkPnV8g

No. Sorry for being unclear. [1] is a great video that covers a lot of good stuff in particular this usability bug. It's worth watching in its entirety.

If you don't want to sit through the video, here's the broken code in question:

    void Obj::update() noexcept {
        unique_lock<mutex>(m_mutex);
        do_the_mutation();
    }

"unique_lock<mutex>(m_mutex);" has no effect, but you might mistakenly think that this will block on m_mutex. Labeling unique_lock's constructor as [[nodiscard]] would force you to think twice. See [2] for more details.

[1] https://youtu.be/lkgszkPnV8g?t=1767

[2] http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p177...

⬐ mehrdadn

Ahh, that makes sense! On my phone at the moment but will check out the video too, thanks!

It can be as fast as C++ whilst at the same time suffering from none of these bugs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkgszkPnV8g

⬐ lainga

#6 really got me (won't spoil it for anyone, but): is this the same reason arr[n] and [arr]n are the same in C? The {square,curly} braces are just sugar?

⬐ caraffle

I don't think it's the same. arr[n] and [arr]n works because brackets simply expand to * (arr + n) in the first case, * (n + arr) in the second.

C++ dictates if a statement can be interpreted as a declaration, it will be (see "The most vexing parse"). Universal initialization was introduced to provide another way to ensure this doesn't happen.

https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1336...