| ▲ | veltas 4 hours ago |
| Surely std::print() shouldn't print anything? |
|
| ▲ | CamouflagedKiwi 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It's a typo, he describes it as std::println in the text, but the code snippet is just print() |
|
| ▲ | nikbackm 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why even call it in that case? |
| |
| ▲ | xuhu 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's apparently a typo in the article, they probably meant to write `println()`. | |
| ▲ | IshKebab 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Typo in this case, but in general supporting "useless" code like this is sometimes a good idea because it makes writing generic code easier. Maybe not in this case. | | |
| ▲ | bluGill 18 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The counter is useless code often is a sign of a bug. Possibly someone started implementing something and then failed to finish it. I often want my compiler to warn on useless code. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | steeleduncan 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I think it is a typo, and should be std::println() |
