lysdexic

Soon, https://www.theverge.meme

From the article:

"To spell it out why this conference generated fake women speakers," Orosz alleges, it was "because the organizer wants big names and it probably seemed like an easy way to address their diversity concerns. Incredibly lazy."

How hard is it for these organizers to actually reach out to women developers and extend an invite to talk about any topic they are interested in? In the very least, there are tons of high-profile bloggers who are vocal about things and stuff. Even though women are severely outnumbered, you almost need to go way out of your way to avoid actually extending an invite to a woman in the field.

So cool. Curious, Why do they need to specify that the project has to be implemented in Rust?

Possibly because some people think that, much like MongoDB, Rust is web scale.

You used the wrong search bar, you just used the one for the file list.

The fact that one of the excuses for GitHub search results being subpar is that there is a right and a wrong search bar is already telling.

must have been a half ass attempt

How hard do you need to try to use a feature for it to be considered decent? Do you expect something as basic as a search to put up a fight?

The biggest news to me is that GitHub allows users to search code. Every single time I tried to search something in GitHub, search results were next to completely useless, and always a sure-fire waste of time and effort.

There's hope, I guess.

If you were right, we wouldn’t have the motivation to look at this in EWG.

I am right. Not benefiting from RVO does not mean you're harming anyone.

Again, I recommend you read the submission and also the discussion.

It doesn't look like it, otherwise you'd be aware that the whole point of this submission is that casting return values with std::move disables RVO.

Yeah, there is no standard.

If you read the README.md file, you'll stumble onto the next paragraph right at its start.

This is a basic layout for Go application projects. It's not an official standard defined by the core Go dev team; however, it is a set of common historical and emerging project layout patterns in the Go ecosystem. (...)

I don’t like this repo and I’ve been recommending people avoid it for years.

Unless you have a better reference that you can provide in place of this one, I don't think you're doing anyone any good. People use these documents for guidance, and no guidance at all is clearly not a better alternative to a concrete example whose worst traits is not fitting someone's vague, subjective opinion.

RVO

I recommend you read the thread.

We do, but they’re all posting on Mastodon.

You don't. Just because people exist and subscribe to a separate service, that does not mean they are or will be Lemmy users.

Anyway, it's my 0.02$. It's ok if you or anyone disagree with me.

I wonder if the language could be updated so these extra std::move invocations actually become harmless? return std::move is something that I see used quite a bit.

These std::move invocations are harmless, as they only cast objects to their rvalue reference.

The destructive bit takes place in the type they are assigned to, as it invokes either a move constructor or a move assignment operator, and calling those implies that the object you just passed to std::move will be invalidated after the call and should not be used subsequently.