Idiomatic way to prevent slicing? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InForce function to be called only with specific typesWhat's the best way to trim std::string?What is object slicing?What's the point of g++ -Wreorder?Easiest way to convert int to string in C++Does the C++ spec allow an instance of a non-virtual class to include memory for a vtable pointer?capture variables inside of subclass?Detecting if a type can be derived from in C++C++ overload function by return typeIs using inline classes inside a function permitted to be used as template types?Short-circuit evaluation and assignment in C++

How to answer pointed "are you quitting" questioning when I don't want them to suspect

Is there a name of the flying bionic bird?

"To split hairs" vs "To be pedantic"

Which Sci-Fi work first showed weapon of galactic-scale mass destruction?

Where does the "burst of radiance" from Holy Weapon originate?

What is the steepest angle that a canal can be traversable without locks?

Extreme, unacceptable situation and I can't attend work tomorrow morning

If Wish Duplicates Simulacrum, Are Existing Duplicates Destroyed?

Why is it "Tumoren" and not "Tumore"?

How to reverse every other sublist of a list?

Is it possible for the two major parties in the UK to form a coalition with each other instead of a much smaller party?

Geography at the pixel level

Inversion Puzzle

I see my dog run

I looked up a future colleague on linkedin before I started a job. I told my colleague about it and he seemed surprised. Should I apologize?

Does duplicating a spell with wish count as casting that spell?

What does "rabbited" mean/imply in this sentence?

Is three citations per paragraph excessive for undergraduate research paper?

Why do UK politicians seemingly ignore opinion polls on Brexit?

Can we apply L'Hospital's rule where the derivative is not continuous?

What could be the right powersource for 15 seconds lifespan disposable giant chainsaw?

Access elements in std::string where positon of string is greater than its size

Why could you hear an Amstrad CPC working?

A poker game description that does not feel gimmicky



Idiomatic way to prevent slicing?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InForce function to be called only with specific typesWhat's the best way to trim std::string?What is object slicing?What's the point of g++ -Wreorder?Easiest way to convert int to string in C++Does the C++ spec allow an instance of a non-virtual class to include memory for a vtable pointer?capture variables inside of subclass?Detecting if a type can be derived from in C++C++ overload function by return typeIs using inline classes inside a function permitted to be used as template types?Short-circuit evaluation and assignment in C++



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;








7















Sometimes it can be an annoyance that c++ defaults to allow slicing. For example



#include <iostream>
struct foo int a; ;
struct bar : foo int b; ;

int main()
bar x1,2;
foo y = x; // <- I dont want this to compile!



This compiles and runs as expected! Though, what if I dont want to enable slicing?



What is the idomatic way to write foo such that one cannot slice instances of any derived class?










share|improve this question






























    7















    Sometimes it can be an annoyance that c++ defaults to allow slicing. For example



    #include <iostream>
    struct foo int a; ;
    struct bar : foo int b; ;

    int main()
    bar x1,2;
    foo y = x; // <- I dont want this to compile!



    This compiles and runs as expected! Though, what if I dont want to enable slicing?



    What is the idomatic way to write foo such that one cannot slice instances of any derived class?










    share|improve this question


























      7












      7








      7


      3






      Sometimes it can be an annoyance that c++ defaults to allow slicing. For example



      #include <iostream>
      struct foo int a; ;
      struct bar : foo int b; ;

      int main()
      bar x1,2;
      foo y = x; // <- I dont want this to compile!



      This compiles and runs as expected! Though, what if I dont want to enable slicing?



      What is the idomatic way to write foo such that one cannot slice instances of any derived class?










      share|improve this question
















      Sometimes it can be an annoyance that c++ defaults to allow slicing. For example



      #include <iostream>
      struct foo int a; ;
      struct bar : foo int b; ;

      int main()
      bar x1,2;
      foo y = x; // <- I dont want this to compile!



      This compiles and runs as expected! Though, what if I dont want to enable slicing?



      What is the idomatic way to write foo such that one cannot slice instances of any derived class?







      c++ inheritance object-slicing






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 24 mins ago









      rrauenza

      3,55921835




      3,55921835










      asked 3 hours ago









      user463035818user463035818

      18.7k42970




      18.7k42970






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          10














          I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



          struct foo 

          int a;
          foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

          template<typename T>
          foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

          template<typename T>
          foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
          ;


          then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.






          share|improve this answer

























          • If I'm not mistaken, the default copy constructor is not necessary.

            – geza
            3 hours ago











          • @geza Yep. I'd need it if i had added the move operators but removing them gives me the defaults for them all. I've removed them. Thanks.

            – NathanOliver
            3 hours ago











          • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

            – eerorika
            2 hours ago











          • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

            – user463035818
            2 hours ago






          • 1





            I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

            – NathanOliver
            2 hours ago



















          3














          You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



          struct foo 
          // ...
          protected:
          foo(foo&) = default;
          ;





          share|improve this answer


















          • 3





            but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

            – user463035818
            3 hours ago


















          3














          Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



          #include <iostream>
          struct foo int a; ;
          struct bar : foo int b; ;

          int main()
          bar x1,2;
          auto y = x; // <- y is a bar



          If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



          Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



          #include <iostream>

          struct foo int a; ;
          struct bar

          bar(int a, int b)
          : foo_(a)
          , b(b)


          int b;

          int get_a() const return foo_.a;

          private:
          foo foo_;
          ;

          int main()
          bar x1,2;
          // foo y = x; // <- does not compile




          Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



          #include <iostream>

          struct foo
          int a;
          protected:
          foo(foo const&) = default;
          foo(foo&&) = default;
          foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
          foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

          ;

          struct bar : foo

          bar(int a, int b)
          : fooa, bb


          int b;
          ;

          int main()
          auto x = bar (1,2);
          // foo y = x; // <- does not compile






          share|improve this answer























            Your Answer






            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
            StackExchange.snippets.init();
            );
            );
            , "code-snippets");

            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "1"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55600025%2fidiomatic-way-to-prevent-slicing%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            10














            I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



            struct foo 

            int a;
            foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

            template<typename T>
            foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

            template<typename T>
            foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
            ;


            then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.






            share|improve this answer

























            • If I'm not mistaken, the default copy constructor is not necessary.

              – geza
              3 hours ago











            • @geza Yep. I'd need it if i had added the move operators but removing them gives me the defaults for them all. I've removed them. Thanks.

              – NathanOliver
              3 hours ago











            • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

              – eerorika
              2 hours ago











            • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

              – user463035818
              2 hours ago






            • 1





              I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

              – NathanOliver
              2 hours ago
















            10














            I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



            struct foo 

            int a;
            foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

            template<typename T>
            foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

            template<typename T>
            foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
            ;


            then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.






            share|improve this answer

























            • If I'm not mistaken, the default copy constructor is not necessary.

              – geza
              3 hours ago











            • @geza Yep. I'd need it if i had added the move operators but removing them gives me the defaults for them all. I've removed them. Thanks.

              – NathanOliver
              3 hours ago











            • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

              – eerorika
              2 hours ago











            • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

              – user463035818
              2 hours ago






            • 1





              I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

              – NathanOliver
              2 hours ago














            10












            10








            10







            I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



            struct foo 

            int a;
            foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

            template<typename T>
            foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

            template<typename T>
            foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
            ;


            then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.






            share|improve this answer















            I'm not sure if there is a named idiom for it but you can add a deleted function to the overload set that is a better match then the base classes slicing operations. If you change foo to



            struct foo 

            int a;
            foo() = default; // you have to add this because of the template constructor

            template<typename T>
            foo(const T&) = delete; // error trying to copy anything but a foo

            template<typename T>
            foo& operator=(const T&) = delete; // error assigning anything else but a foo
            ;


            then you can only ever copy construct or copy assign a foo to foo. Any other type will pick the function template and you'll get an error about using a deleted function. This does mean that your class, and the classes that use it can no longer be an aggregate though. Since the members that are added are templates, they are not considered copy constructors or copy assignment operators so you'll get the default copy and move constructors and assignment operators.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 3 hours ago

























            answered 3 hours ago









            NathanOliverNathanOliver

            98.5k16138218




            98.5k16138218












            • If I'm not mistaken, the default copy constructor is not necessary.

              – geza
              3 hours ago











            • @geza Yep. I'd need it if i had added the move operators but removing them gives me the defaults for them all. I've removed them. Thanks.

              – NathanOliver
              3 hours ago











            • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

              – eerorika
              2 hours ago











            • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

              – user463035818
              2 hours ago






            • 1





              I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

              – NathanOliver
              2 hours ago


















            • If I'm not mistaken, the default copy constructor is not necessary.

              – geza
              3 hours ago











            • @geza Yep. I'd need it if i had added the move operators but removing them gives me the defaults for them all. I've removed them. Thanks.

              – NathanOliver
              3 hours ago











            • Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

              – eerorika
              2 hours ago











            • if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

              – user463035818
              2 hours ago






            • 1





              I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

              – NathanOliver
              2 hours ago

















            If I'm not mistaken, the default copy constructor is not necessary.

            – geza
            3 hours ago





            If I'm not mistaken, the default copy constructor is not necessary.

            – geza
            3 hours ago













            @geza Yep. I'd need it if i had added the move operators but removing them gives me the defaults for them all. I've removed them. Thanks.

            – NathanOliver
            3 hours ago





            @geza Yep. I'd need it if i had added the move operators but removing them gives me the defaults for them all. I've removed them. Thanks.

            – NathanOliver
            3 hours ago













            Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

            – eerorika
            2 hours ago





            Note that this doesn't prevent explicit slicing like this: foo y = static_cast<foo&>(x);. That said, perhaps it's not a problem to OP.

            – eerorika
            2 hours ago













            if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

            – user463035818
            2 hours ago





            if I understand correctly this is a nice way to prevent implicit conversions for function parameters in general

            – user463035818
            2 hours ago




            1




            1





            I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

            – NathanOliver
            2 hours ago






            I look at it as reverse SFINAE. You make the overloads you want to compile, and then add a deleted template stopping everything else.

            – NathanOliver
            2 hours ago














            3














            You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



            struct foo 
            // ...
            protected:
            foo(foo&) = default;
            ;





            share|improve this answer


















            • 3





              but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

              – user463035818
              3 hours ago















            3














            You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



            struct foo 
            // ...
            protected:
            foo(foo&) = default;
            ;





            share|improve this answer


















            • 3





              but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

              – user463035818
              3 hours ago













            3












            3








            3







            You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



            struct foo 
            // ...
            protected:
            foo(foo&) = default;
            ;





            share|improve this answer













            You can prevent the base from being copied outside of member functions of derived classes and the base itself by declaring the copy constructor protected:



            struct foo 
            // ...
            protected:
            foo(foo&) = default;
            ;






            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 3 hours ago









            eerorikaeerorika

            89.8k664136




            89.8k664136







            • 3





              but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

              – user463035818
              3 hours ago












            • 3





              but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

              – user463035818
              3 hours ago







            3




            3





            but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

            – user463035818
            3 hours ago





            but then I cannot copy foos anymore :( I'd like to prevent only copying a bar to a foo if possible

            – user463035818
            3 hours ago











            3














            Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



            #include <iostream>
            struct foo int a; ;
            struct bar : foo int b; ;

            int main()
            bar x1,2;
            auto y = x; // <- y is a bar



            If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



            Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



            #include <iostream>

            struct foo int a; ;
            struct bar

            bar(int a, int b)
            : foo_(a)
            , b(b)


            int b;

            int get_a() const return foo_.a;

            private:
            foo foo_;
            ;

            int main()
            bar x1,2;
            // foo y = x; // <- does not compile




            Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



            #include <iostream>

            struct foo
            int a;
            protected:
            foo(foo const&) = default;
            foo(foo&&) = default;
            foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
            foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

            ;

            struct bar : foo

            bar(int a, int b)
            : fooa, bb


            int b;
            ;

            int main()
            auto x = bar (1,2);
            // foo y = x; // <- does not compile






            share|improve this answer



























              3














              Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



              #include <iostream>
              struct foo int a; ;
              struct bar : foo int b; ;

              int main()
              bar x1,2;
              auto y = x; // <- y is a bar



              If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



              Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



              #include <iostream>

              struct foo int a; ;
              struct bar

              bar(int a, int b)
              : foo_(a)
              , b(b)


              int b;

              int get_a() const return foo_.a;

              private:
              foo foo_;
              ;

              int main()
              bar x1,2;
              // foo y = x; // <- does not compile




              Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



              #include <iostream>

              struct foo
              int a;
              protected:
              foo(foo const&) = default;
              foo(foo&&) = default;
              foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
              foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

              ;

              struct bar : foo

              bar(int a, int b)
              : fooa, bb


              int b;
              ;

              int main()
              auto x = bar (1,2);
              // foo y = x; // <- does not compile






              share|improve this answer

























                3












                3








                3







                Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



                #include <iostream>
                struct foo int a; ;
                struct bar : foo int b; ;

                int main()
                bar x1,2;
                auto y = x; // <- y is a bar



                If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



                Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



                #include <iostream>

                struct foo int a; ;
                struct bar

                bar(int a, int b)
                : foo_(a)
                , b(b)


                int b;

                int get_a() const return foo_.a;

                private:
                foo foo_;
                ;

                int main()
                bar x1,2;
                // foo y = x; // <- does not compile




                Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



                #include <iostream>

                struct foo
                int a;
                protected:
                foo(foo const&) = default;
                foo(foo&&) = default;
                foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
                foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

                ;

                struct bar : foo

                bar(int a, int b)
                : fooa, bb


                int b;
                ;

                int main()
                auto x = bar (1,2);
                // foo y = x; // <- does not compile






                share|improve this answer













                Since 2011, the idiomatic way has been to use auto:



                #include <iostream>
                struct foo int a; ;
                struct bar : foo int b; ;

                int main()
                bar x1,2;
                auto y = x; // <- y is a bar



                If you wish to actively prevent slicing, there are a number of ways:



                Usually the most preferable way, unless you specifically need inheritance (you often don't) is to use encapsulation:



                #include <iostream>

                struct foo int a; ;
                struct bar

                bar(int a, int b)
                : foo_(a)
                , b(b)


                int b;

                int get_a() const return foo_.a;

                private:
                foo foo_;
                ;

                int main()
                bar x1,2;
                // foo y = x; // <- does not compile




                Another more specialised way might be to alter the permissions around copy operators:



                #include <iostream>

                struct foo
                int a;
                protected:
                foo(foo const&) = default;
                foo(foo&&) = default;
                foo& operator=(foo const&) = default;
                foo& operator=(foo&&) = default;

                ;

                struct bar : foo

                bar(int a, int b)
                : fooa, bb


                int b;
                ;

                int main()
                auto x = bar (1,2);
                // foo y = x; // <- does not compile







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 3 hours ago









                Richard HodgesRichard Hodges

                56.9k658105




                56.9k658105



























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55600025%2fidiomatic-way-to-prevent-slicing%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Are there any AGPL-style licences that require source code modifications to be public? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Force derivative works to be publicAre there any GPL like licenses for Apple App Store?Do you violate the GPL if you provide source code that cannot be compiled?GPL - is it distribution to use libraries in an appliance loaned to customers?Distributing App for free which uses GPL'ed codeModifications of server software under GPL, with web/CLI interfaceDoes using an AGPLv3-licensed library prevent me from dual-licensing my own source code?Can I publish only select code under GPLv3 from a private project?Is there published precedent regarding the scope of covered work that uses AGPL software?If MIT licensed code links to GPL licensed code what should be the license of the resulting binary program?If I use a public API endpoint that has its source code licensed under AGPL in my app, do I need to disclose my source?

                    2013 GY136 Descoberta | Órbita | Referências Menu de navegação«List Of Centaurs and Scattered-Disk Objects»«List of Known Trans-Neptunian Objects»

                    Button changing it's text & action. Good or terrible? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are Inchanging text on user mouseoverShould certain functions be “hard to find” for powerusers to discover?Custom liking function - do I need user login?Using different checkbox style for different checkbox behaviorBest Practices: Save and Exit in Software UIInteraction with remote validated formMore efficient UI to progress the user through a complicated process?Designing a popup notice for a gameShould bulk-editing functions be hidden until a table row is selected, or is there a better solution?Is it bad practice to disable (replace) the context menu?