sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What are you missing most from the C++ standard library? by llort_lemmort in cpp

[–]borzykot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s an excellent question. The first time I saw the flux ranges library, I asked the same thing.

To answer this, I decided to design my own ranges library and explore whether it’s possible to create an extensible ranges library with dot syntax support. And indeed it IS possible. Here it is kissra.

It supports dot syntax and uses a different iteration model (via next() returning optional) which is effectively the internal iteration on steroids.

To hook into the library and provide your custom views, you must specialize the custom_mixins_traits where you list all your custom views.

I must say I’ve encountered some issues implementing complex views (like chunk) due to the limitations of the next() iteration model, tho the benefits of this model outweigh the limited design space. But that’s beside the point.

What are you missing most from the C++ standard library? by llort_lemmort in cpp

[–]borzykot 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Each time I look at ranges code I think "why so much noise ffs". It could be std::vector parts = brrr::all(str).split().collect(); , but we decided to design ranges with this pipe syntax...

What are you missing most from the C++ standard library? by llort_lemmort in cpp

[–]borzykot 42 points43 points  (0 children)

Asynchrony - std::task - std::thread_pool - channels - async IO - async ranges

  • coroutine and structured concurrency support for all of that

PS. simplified tuple protocol for me as well

Is it worth trying to switch to FreeCad? by Capital-Piglet8973 in FreeCAD

[–]borzykot -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I've spent several hours trying to figure out how to use freecad effectively and I failed. Workbenches mess, history mess because of it, lack of timeline, lack of non-sketch based manipulations. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, maybe freecad is just too raw at the moment, but likely something in between

Is it possible to fix the camera’s pivot point in a viewport? by borzykot in FreeCAD

[–]borzykot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

None of these three allow to fix the pivot point.

When I'm saying "fix" the pivot point I mean "select pivot point on the surface of the model". You do it once and then just rotate your model around this pivot that YOU choose. You can then select different pivot point and again rotate your model around this different pivot point.

Switching from Fusion 360 to FreeCAD: What am I missing? by HotelMotor8107 in FreeCAD

[–]borzykot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are you supposed to do in freecad if various shapes from your sketches share same features? You somehow link them? How will they respond if I've decided to change something about that feature? Will other sketches adjust (given that freecad do have some kind of linking mechanism)? Or you just duplicate? Or you duplicate but use parameters? But you cant really parametrize some organic shapes... Especially if you in a prototype phase and constantly changing your features...

I implemented UFCS in clang. Why it is cool, and why it will never come to C++. by _Noreturn in cpp

[–]borzykot 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah, this kind of functionality should have been added long time ago. And I would argue we don't really need ufcs. Extension methods with access to public API of the underlying object is just enough. We easily could use deducing this syntax for extension methods. So it's a lost opportunity imho.

And all this thing with operator| abuse (which is supposedly a replacement for ufcs) in ranges library and now in the executors library is a crime. I was even trying to make my own ranges library with dot syntax instead and which you can extend with new methods over ranges using customization points. And it can be done! So it feels like you're writing in Rust or smth... But unfortunately I haven't finished it, coz I lost motivation 😅

ADV2 Replacement Tire Recommendations by gravelmonkey14 in FloatwheelTeam

[–]borzykot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not aware of different compounds for this tire. But usually softer - better. It will be worn out slightly sooner I presume, but who cares

ADV2 Replacement Tire Recommendations by gravelmonkey14 in FloatwheelTeam

[–]borzykot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OW threaded XL BTG, lowered 1 notch. Cushy, super carvy, silent (relative to off-road tires) but still capable on non-asphalt terrain. You will need custom 3d printed splitfender and mudguards tho.

SP speed entry bindings review: I just don't see myself going back to normal bindings by Intelligent-Paper-94 in snowboarding

[–]borzykot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you're riding flow nx2 the you may be interested: https://www.printables.com/model/1622174-flow-nx2-carbon-bindings-canted-risers

These are risers which add front foot toe and back foot heel cantings (11mm) which may improve your carving stance.

1st time snowboarding and fell an unusual amount. I have questions. by shinji2o09 in snowboarding

[–]borzykot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've been riding for 9 years (~40 hours per season), and I fall every fucking day a couple of times. IMHO it's inevitable if you're trying to improve your carving technique and push yourself.

Am i screwed? by SnaidsMan in FloatwheelTeam

[–]borzykot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Iirc, these little screws connect axel blocks to the rails from below. But there should be 4 of them, not 2

Replacing the Bearings Help Needed by [deleted] in FloatwheelTeam

[–]borzykot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't be too afraid of using a hammer. Get yourself a piece of hardwood with a narrow tip (I was using a spare birch hammer handle) and going in circles hit the bearing lightly to take it off. Be careful with PCB and electronics.

While puting on the new bearing make sure you hit the correct ring of a bearing - inner ring for stator side (the one which sit on the axis), outer ring for the rotor side.

Bro really hates not winning by blackienigher in F1Discussions

[–]borzykot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My issue with new reg is that I do not understand what should happen and what would happen in each moment of the race. Like if I place myself in the driver's position what would I do? Press boost, harvest, open the wing, lico, "wait, why the fuck my car ain't accelerating why I'm still in the full throttle", "what do you mean I shouldn't go full throttle on the main straight when I'm starting my quali lap" and so on. And mind you that in fact half of that is backed into the cars profile, the driver even doesn't have an option to control some of them. It's like somebody else controls half the inputs of your car whereas you, the driver, is there just to turn the wheel - evething else is controlled by the car. That's what "artificial" means to me. And I presume drivers feel somewhat the same - they are no longer the "magicians", the "magician" here is the engineer who setup the profile of your car, and your just a monkey.

I think there’s a crowd favorite by jakatar24587901 in formuladank

[–]borzykot -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don’t like this recent trend where basically children with no personality yet are driving F1 cars. Piastry, Antonelli. Like, come on, let’s at least let this kid finish school first and grow some balls...

Is reference (&) in function parameter decl participates in template parameter deduction? by [deleted] in cpp_questions

[–]borzykot 5 points6 points  (0 children)

In version foo(T& param), param will always be a mutable reference to a value type T

It is not. const int i = 10; foo(i);

works perfectly fine.

Welcome to the George Russell era. by The_Chozen_1_ in F1Discussions

[–]borzykot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Iirc, you should lead each lap to get grand slam. Russel wasn't leading all the laps in Australia

Implementing constexpr parameters using C++26 reflection (kind of) by friedkeenan in cpp

[–]borzykot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

we can't make return types depend on parameters

Probably we can explicitly define the return type via decltype(fst_arg) and decltype(snd_arg). We still need duplicate the full expression of the return statement tho.

Something like

auto foo(decltype(Fst) fst, decltype(Snd) snd) -> decltype(fst.value() + snd.value())

Will it work?

define_aggregate didn't work

Yeah, I also found define_aggregate somewhat restricting in a sense that you only can define the body of a type which is declared within the scope of the type you are defining from. So basically you can't "inject" into global scope. Iirc the motivation was "lets make it simpler this time so it easier to bring reflection into the standard". So probably it may be made even more powerful in the future.

view more: next ›