On Friday 05 March 2010 07:44:22 am rgheck wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 07:16 AM, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >> On 03/05/2010 11:56 AM, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> >>> now when looping i write something like this:
> >>>
> >>> row_type const nrows = row_info.size();
> >>> for (row_typ
On 03/05/2010 07:16 AM, Edwin Leuven wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
On 03/05/2010 11:56 AM, Edwin Leuven wrote:
now when looping i write something like this:
row_type const nrows = row_info.size();
for (row_type r = 0; r < nrows; ++r) {
are compilers these days smart enough so that we can si
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
On 03/05/2010 11:56 AM, Edwin Leuven wrote:
now when looping i write something like this:
row_type const nrows = row_info.size();
for (row_type r = 0; r < nrows; ++r) {
are compilers these days smart enough so that we can simply write:
for (row_type r = 0; r < row_inf
On 03/05/2010 11:56 AM, Edwin Leuven wrote:
now when looping i write something like this:
row_type const nrows = row_info.size();
for (row_type r = 0; r < nrows; ++r) {
are compilers these days smart enough so that we can simply write:
for (row_type r = 0; r < row_info.size(); ++r) {
I guess
now when looping i write something like this:
row_type const nrows = row_info.size();
for (row_type r = 0; r < nrows; ++r) {
are compilers these days smart enough so that we can simply write:
for (row_type r = 0; r < row_info.size(); ++r) {
?
thanks, ed.
