I actually like this, at least in some way it could lower the barrier for actually explaining what a function does. Though I don’t see this working in an office environment

It’s an island! Who needs a car on an island? At least on one as small as this one.

I haven’t tried any custom roms on my FP4. But I can say I wholeheartedly support their work. Maybe the older ones had issues, but mine has been running smoothly ever since I bought it when it launched.

I’ve also dropped it like 200 times already, and haven’t a single crack. The back cover is cracked though, but that’s because I took it off so often to show people :P

All in all, 10/10.

I highly doubt any company will take such an online school seriously for senior positions.

True, though here the hack is incredibly unintuitive for the programmer. You have to declare the constructor, but then leave it unimplemented. Not to mention the compiler error that should catch this now only occurs at link time, and linking errors are even more cryptic to grok.

When they made RVO mandatory, they should’ve removed the constructor declaration requirement as well, instead of a half-ass solution like this.

As a final nail in the coffin, std::is_move_constructible<> suddenly returns true for this non-move-constructible type 😉

Well, it’s really interesting that this is a hack that works, but you’re really fighting the compiler here.

This is making me all the happier I switched to Rust 😂

This is the only way really to move forward with ISA extensions.

Though, I think for this update we don’t need to be too concerned. Since it changes the code in such an extensive way, compiler writers will be strongly incentivised to produce this duplicate path themselves. Instead of letting the burden of dispatching fall on the programmer like with AVX and friends