05:23:20 <mj-xmr[m]> <selsta> "mj-xmr: ok solved it, will PR..." <- That was fast :)
12:05:51 <Guest7777> hello
12:06:45 <Guest7777> from 4/7 hardfork wownero price is X3
12:07:10 <Guest7777> why monero dont insert the same
12:07:30 <Guest7777> 300%
12:15:26 <Guest7777> why monero dont obligate solo mining
12:16:34 <sethsimmons> Guest7777: Not for this room, please take it to #monero or #monero-mining
12:20:07 <sech1> classic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
12:22:41 <sethsimmons> sech1: I learn new things from you every day, sech1 😅
12:22:47 <Guest7777> ok maybe i dont have your deep view
12:23:55 <Guest7777> but there is some reason right?
12:24:13 <sech1> it's not a channel to discuss it, ask in #monero
12:24:43 <Guest7777> monero need reg
12:24:47 <Guest7777> im not a reg user
12:25:33 <sethsimmons> Guest7777: Take it to #monero, last warning. This room is strictly for dev discussions.
12:34:47 <rbrunner> I see a lot of use of std::pair in the Monero codebase, even things like this to pack 3 things: std::pair<std::pair<double, std::time_t>, crypto::hash>
12:35:03 <rbrunner> (That one is from the tx pool code)
12:35:41 <rbrunner> And then beauties like this code line: else if (a.first.second < b.first.second) return true;
12:36:32 <rbrunner> If I think that really cries for a 3-element struct, am I just inexperienced in C++, or would I have a point?
12:40:21 <merope> Technically there are tuples as well in the standard library, but the syntax is more annoying
12:41:57 <rbrunner> Do I overlook some really wonderful advantages of pairs, tuples, whatever over a lowly, simple, and *expressive* struct (because of member names)?
12:42:46 <rbrunner> I mean, why should I endure "a.first.second" instead of "a.time"?
12:44:05 <rbrunner> (The Monero angle is, by the way, that I want to write code that does similar things for the tx_pool, and wonder whether to break with that "pair style" or blend in by using it)
12:45:03 <UkoeHB> Presumably you don't have to write the few extra lines for a new struct... (just rely on the std::pair<> template)
12:47:18 <rbrunner> Yeah, I see, but how many times already I started out with a struct with two members, covered by a pair, which grew to 5 members over time ... (with other programming languages)
12:47:41 <UkoeHB> 🤷‍♂️
12:47:46 <hyc> ^
12:47:55 <merope> The point of tuples is to have a "one-off" structure
12:48:13 <merope> If you intend to reuse the same structure, then yeah, a struct or a class make more sense
12:49:09 <merope> (Not the individual variable, but the actual structure)
12:49:22 <rbrunner> Alright. So if *not* using a pair I won't run into difficulties with the STL that in some places may insist on a pair, or out of luck?
12:50:55 <rbrunner> Probably not, because deep down a pair must be a struct as well, right?
12:51:27 <rbrunner> Sprinkled with some templating magic dust :)
12:52:01 <UkoeHB> The value type of a `std::map` is `std::pair`, so maybe there is something funky related to that...
12:52:59 <rbrunner> Yeah, but there it makes sense to me, with key and stored element, and I don't have trouble to immediately recognize ".first" and ".second"
12:54:12 <UkoeHB> I meant maybe there is a std::map or std::unordered_map using your std::pair somehow...
12:54:48 <rbrunner> Ah, you mean in the code I looked at? It goes into a std::set
12:55:54 <UkoeHB> hmm yeah struct should work fine then
12:58:24 <rbrunner> Ok, thanks, I think I can place things better now
13:59:13 <fluffypony> dartian[m]: good q - that's possibly more a question for #monero-site
13:59:58 <fluffypony> I don't think using a url shortener for tracking is an issue, there's very little data that most of them can infer, and anyone who is clicking on a marketing link or something is probably not needing mammoth amounts of good opsec lol
14:31:44 <mj-xmr[m]> <rbrunner> "If I think that really cries for..." <- Ideally a std::tuple, available from C++11. This can be compared against other tuple of the same type (this also sorted), without any butchery, like you have to do with pairs.
14:32:04 <mj-xmr[m]> But you could also write a special struct for this, if you have time.
14:32:30 <mj-xmr[m]> The struct will however not be automatically comparable, like the tuple is.
14:34:35 <mj-xmr[m]> mj-xmr[m]: *this means also, that it can be sorted in a list of the same tuples, I meant.