wrapper for common subset of auto_ptr and unique_ptr APIboost::any replacement with std::unique_ptr supportunique_ptr usage too unwieldyI wrote a class to implement auto_ptrCustom class for a borrowed unique_ptr<T>?Implementation of unique_ptr and make_unique for aligned memoryDeepPtr: a deep-copying unique_ptr wrapper in C++Thread class that uses std::unique_ptrMy implementation for std::unique_ptrInheriting from std::auto_ptr to support deletion of allocated arrays in C++98/C++03unique_ptr basic implementation for single objects

Rendered textures different to 3D View

Calculate Pi using Monte Carlo

Extract substring according to regexp with sed or grep

Do native speakers use "ultima" and "proxima" frequently in spoken English?

How do I prevent inappropriate ads from appearing in my game?

Should a narrator ever describe things based on a character's view instead of facts?

Why do Radio Buttons not fill the entire outer circle?

Do people actually use the word "kaputt" in conversation?

C++ lambda syntax

How do I lift the insulation blower into the attic?

Would this string work as string?

How do you say "Trust your struggle." in French?

What is it called when someone votes for an option that's not their first choice?

Magnifying glass in hyperbolic space

How to test the sharpness of a knife?

What is this high flying aircraft over Pennsylvania?

Is there a distance limit for minecart tracks?

What should be the ideal length of sentences in a blog post for ease of reading?

Capacitor electron flow

New Order #2: Turn My Way

categorizing a variable turns it from insignificant to significant

What can I do if I am asked to learn different programming languages very frequently?

Why is "la Gestapo" feminine?

How can a new country break out from a developed country without war?



wrapper for common subset of auto_ptr and unique_ptr API


boost::any replacement with std::unique_ptr supportunique_ptr usage too unwieldyI wrote a class to implement auto_ptrCustom class for a borrowed unique_ptr<T>?Implementation of unique_ptr and make_unique for aligned memoryDeepPtr: a deep-copying unique_ptr wrapper in C++Thread class that uses std::unique_ptrMy implementation for std::unique_ptrInheriting from std::auto_ptr to support deletion of allocated arrays in C++98/C++03unique_ptr basic implementation for single objects













1












$begingroup$


I read an interesting old question on the Software Engineering SE about how to transition away from std::auto_ptr. So I wrote a wrapper around the common subset of std::auto_ptr and std::unique_ptr.



The wrapper's mission in life at runtime is to clean up pointers created with new when the scope ends regardless of how the scope is exited. Its job at compile time is to make compilation fail as informatively as possible when fake_autoptr is used in a non-lowest-common-denominator way.



fake_autoptr is supposed to make it easier to transition away from std::auto_ptr and support both C++11 and C++03 until support for C++03 is dropped. It should behave the same way whether it is backed by an auto_ptr or a unique_ptr.



The example given in the old question is this. This example is not leveraging many of the things that an autoptr can do. I think, but am not 100% certain that the autoptr's job here is just to run delete when its destructor is called and not to steal resources from other autoptrs.



// NOT MINE DO NOT REVIEW

Foo* GetFoo()

autoptr<Foo> ptr(new Foo);

// Initialize Foo
ptr->Initialize(...);

// Now configure remaining attributes
ptr->SomeSetting(...);

return ptr.release();



Here is the wrapper I came up with.



#ifndef FAKE_AUTOPTR_FAKE_AUTOPTR_INCLUDED
#define FAKE_AUTOPTR_FAKE_AUTOPTR_INCLUDED 1

#include <memory>
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
#include <type_traits>
#endif

namespace fake_autoptr_ns
namespace detail
template <class T>
void destroy(T* goner)
delete goner;



template <class T>
class fake_autoptr
public:
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
std::unique_ptr<T, decltype(&detail::destroy<T>)> smartptr_;
typedef decltype(smartptr_) smartptr_type;
#else
std::auto_ptr<T> smartptr_;
typedef std::auto_ptr<T> smartptr_type;
#endif


#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
fake_autoptr() = delete;
~fake_autoptr() = default;
#else
private:
fake_autoptr();
public:
#endif


#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
template <class CtorArg>
explicit fake_autoptr(CtorArg something) : smartptr_(something, detail::destroy<T>)
static_assert(std::is_same<T*, CtorArg>::value, "constructor argument must be T*");

#else
template <class CtorArg>
explicit fake_autoptr(CtorArg something) : smartptr_(something)
#endif


// delete special member functions
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
explicit fake_autoptr(const fake_autoptr<T>&) = delete;
explicit fake_autoptr(fake_autoptr<T>&&) = delete;
fake_autoptr& operator=(const fake_autoptr<T>&) = delete;
fake_autoptr& operator=(fake_autoptr<T> &&) = delete;
#else
private:
explicit fake_autoptr(const fake_autoptr<T>&);
fake_autoptr& operator=(const fake_autoptr<T>&);
public:
#endif

#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
T& operator*() = delete;
T* get() = delete;
#endif

const smartptr_type& operator->() const
return smartptr_;


smartptr_type& operator->()
return smartptr_;


T* release()
return smartptr_.release();


#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
const T* release() const = delete;

void reset() = delete;

void reset() const = delete;
#endif
;


#endif // FAKE_AUTOPTR_FAKE_AUTOPTR_INCLUDED


This is less interesting, but here's a smoke test to make sure it works



#include "fake_autoptr.hpp"
#include <cstdio>

struct TwoInts
int int1;
int int2;
void print_first_int()
printf("1st %dn", int1);

void print_second_int()
printf("2nd %dn", int2);

;


TwoInts* GetInt()

using namespace fake_autoptr_ns;
TwoInts *t = new TwoInts();
t->int1 = 3;
t->int2 = 7;
fake_autoptr<TwoInts> ptr(t);
ptr->print_first_int();
ptr->print_second_int();
return ptr.release();


int main()
TwoInts *t = GetInt();
delete t;
return 0;










share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Can you explain your use-case better? When would I want to use fake_autoptr<T> in preference to std::unique_ptr<T>? The only advantage to std::auto_ptr is that it compiles as C++03... but your fake_autoptr is C++11-only, so that's not why you're using it. Why not just use std::unique_ptr?
    $endgroup$
    – Quuxplusone
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Quuxplusone, I've edited the code so it compiles as either C++11 or C++03 ...
    $endgroup$
    – Gregory Nisbet
    1 hour ago















1












$begingroup$


I read an interesting old question on the Software Engineering SE about how to transition away from std::auto_ptr. So I wrote a wrapper around the common subset of std::auto_ptr and std::unique_ptr.



The wrapper's mission in life at runtime is to clean up pointers created with new when the scope ends regardless of how the scope is exited. Its job at compile time is to make compilation fail as informatively as possible when fake_autoptr is used in a non-lowest-common-denominator way.



fake_autoptr is supposed to make it easier to transition away from std::auto_ptr and support both C++11 and C++03 until support for C++03 is dropped. It should behave the same way whether it is backed by an auto_ptr or a unique_ptr.



The example given in the old question is this. This example is not leveraging many of the things that an autoptr can do. I think, but am not 100% certain that the autoptr's job here is just to run delete when its destructor is called and not to steal resources from other autoptrs.



// NOT MINE DO NOT REVIEW

Foo* GetFoo()

autoptr<Foo> ptr(new Foo);

// Initialize Foo
ptr->Initialize(...);

// Now configure remaining attributes
ptr->SomeSetting(...);

return ptr.release();



Here is the wrapper I came up with.



#ifndef FAKE_AUTOPTR_FAKE_AUTOPTR_INCLUDED
#define FAKE_AUTOPTR_FAKE_AUTOPTR_INCLUDED 1

#include <memory>
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
#include <type_traits>
#endif

namespace fake_autoptr_ns
namespace detail
template <class T>
void destroy(T* goner)
delete goner;



template <class T>
class fake_autoptr
public:
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
std::unique_ptr<T, decltype(&detail::destroy<T>)> smartptr_;
typedef decltype(smartptr_) smartptr_type;
#else
std::auto_ptr<T> smartptr_;
typedef std::auto_ptr<T> smartptr_type;
#endif


#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
fake_autoptr() = delete;
~fake_autoptr() = default;
#else
private:
fake_autoptr();
public:
#endif


#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
template <class CtorArg>
explicit fake_autoptr(CtorArg something) : smartptr_(something, detail::destroy<T>)
static_assert(std::is_same<T*, CtorArg>::value, "constructor argument must be T*");

#else
template <class CtorArg>
explicit fake_autoptr(CtorArg something) : smartptr_(something)
#endif


// delete special member functions
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
explicit fake_autoptr(const fake_autoptr<T>&) = delete;
explicit fake_autoptr(fake_autoptr<T>&&) = delete;
fake_autoptr& operator=(const fake_autoptr<T>&) = delete;
fake_autoptr& operator=(fake_autoptr<T> &&) = delete;
#else
private:
explicit fake_autoptr(const fake_autoptr<T>&);
fake_autoptr& operator=(const fake_autoptr<T>&);
public:
#endif

#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
T& operator*() = delete;
T* get() = delete;
#endif

const smartptr_type& operator->() const
return smartptr_;


smartptr_type& operator->()
return smartptr_;


T* release()
return smartptr_.release();


#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
const T* release() const = delete;

void reset() = delete;

void reset() const = delete;
#endif
;


#endif // FAKE_AUTOPTR_FAKE_AUTOPTR_INCLUDED


This is less interesting, but here's a smoke test to make sure it works



#include "fake_autoptr.hpp"
#include <cstdio>

struct TwoInts
int int1;
int int2;
void print_first_int()
printf("1st %dn", int1);

void print_second_int()
printf("2nd %dn", int2);

;


TwoInts* GetInt()

using namespace fake_autoptr_ns;
TwoInts *t = new TwoInts();
t->int1 = 3;
t->int2 = 7;
fake_autoptr<TwoInts> ptr(t);
ptr->print_first_int();
ptr->print_second_int();
return ptr.release();


int main()
TwoInts *t = GetInt();
delete t;
return 0;










share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Can you explain your use-case better? When would I want to use fake_autoptr<T> in preference to std::unique_ptr<T>? The only advantage to std::auto_ptr is that it compiles as C++03... but your fake_autoptr is C++11-only, so that's not why you're using it. Why not just use std::unique_ptr?
    $endgroup$
    – Quuxplusone
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Quuxplusone, I've edited the code so it compiles as either C++11 or C++03 ...
    $endgroup$
    – Gregory Nisbet
    1 hour ago













1












1








1





$begingroup$


I read an interesting old question on the Software Engineering SE about how to transition away from std::auto_ptr. So I wrote a wrapper around the common subset of std::auto_ptr and std::unique_ptr.



The wrapper's mission in life at runtime is to clean up pointers created with new when the scope ends regardless of how the scope is exited. Its job at compile time is to make compilation fail as informatively as possible when fake_autoptr is used in a non-lowest-common-denominator way.



fake_autoptr is supposed to make it easier to transition away from std::auto_ptr and support both C++11 and C++03 until support for C++03 is dropped. It should behave the same way whether it is backed by an auto_ptr or a unique_ptr.



The example given in the old question is this. This example is not leveraging many of the things that an autoptr can do. I think, but am not 100% certain that the autoptr's job here is just to run delete when its destructor is called and not to steal resources from other autoptrs.



// NOT MINE DO NOT REVIEW

Foo* GetFoo()

autoptr<Foo> ptr(new Foo);

// Initialize Foo
ptr->Initialize(...);

// Now configure remaining attributes
ptr->SomeSetting(...);

return ptr.release();



Here is the wrapper I came up with.



#ifndef FAKE_AUTOPTR_FAKE_AUTOPTR_INCLUDED
#define FAKE_AUTOPTR_FAKE_AUTOPTR_INCLUDED 1

#include <memory>
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
#include <type_traits>
#endif

namespace fake_autoptr_ns
namespace detail
template <class T>
void destroy(T* goner)
delete goner;



template <class T>
class fake_autoptr
public:
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
std::unique_ptr<T, decltype(&detail::destroy<T>)> smartptr_;
typedef decltype(smartptr_) smartptr_type;
#else
std::auto_ptr<T> smartptr_;
typedef std::auto_ptr<T> smartptr_type;
#endif


#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
fake_autoptr() = delete;
~fake_autoptr() = default;
#else
private:
fake_autoptr();
public:
#endif


#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
template <class CtorArg>
explicit fake_autoptr(CtorArg something) : smartptr_(something, detail::destroy<T>)
static_assert(std::is_same<T*, CtorArg>::value, "constructor argument must be T*");

#else
template <class CtorArg>
explicit fake_autoptr(CtorArg something) : smartptr_(something)
#endif


// delete special member functions
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
explicit fake_autoptr(const fake_autoptr<T>&) = delete;
explicit fake_autoptr(fake_autoptr<T>&&) = delete;
fake_autoptr& operator=(const fake_autoptr<T>&) = delete;
fake_autoptr& operator=(fake_autoptr<T> &&) = delete;
#else
private:
explicit fake_autoptr(const fake_autoptr<T>&);
fake_autoptr& operator=(const fake_autoptr<T>&);
public:
#endif

#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
T& operator*() = delete;
T* get() = delete;
#endif

const smartptr_type& operator->() const
return smartptr_;


smartptr_type& operator->()
return smartptr_;


T* release()
return smartptr_.release();


#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
const T* release() const = delete;

void reset() = delete;

void reset() const = delete;
#endif
;


#endif // FAKE_AUTOPTR_FAKE_AUTOPTR_INCLUDED


This is less interesting, but here's a smoke test to make sure it works



#include "fake_autoptr.hpp"
#include <cstdio>

struct TwoInts
int int1;
int int2;
void print_first_int()
printf("1st %dn", int1);

void print_second_int()
printf("2nd %dn", int2);

;


TwoInts* GetInt()

using namespace fake_autoptr_ns;
TwoInts *t = new TwoInts();
t->int1 = 3;
t->int2 = 7;
fake_autoptr<TwoInts> ptr(t);
ptr->print_first_int();
ptr->print_second_int();
return ptr.release();


int main()
TwoInts *t = GetInt();
delete t;
return 0;










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




I read an interesting old question on the Software Engineering SE about how to transition away from std::auto_ptr. So I wrote a wrapper around the common subset of std::auto_ptr and std::unique_ptr.



The wrapper's mission in life at runtime is to clean up pointers created with new when the scope ends regardless of how the scope is exited. Its job at compile time is to make compilation fail as informatively as possible when fake_autoptr is used in a non-lowest-common-denominator way.



fake_autoptr is supposed to make it easier to transition away from std::auto_ptr and support both C++11 and C++03 until support for C++03 is dropped. It should behave the same way whether it is backed by an auto_ptr or a unique_ptr.



The example given in the old question is this. This example is not leveraging many of the things that an autoptr can do. I think, but am not 100% certain that the autoptr's job here is just to run delete when its destructor is called and not to steal resources from other autoptrs.



// NOT MINE DO NOT REVIEW

Foo* GetFoo()

autoptr<Foo> ptr(new Foo);

// Initialize Foo
ptr->Initialize(...);

// Now configure remaining attributes
ptr->SomeSetting(...);

return ptr.release();



Here is the wrapper I came up with.



#ifndef FAKE_AUTOPTR_FAKE_AUTOPTR_INCLUDED
#define FAKE_AUTOPTR_FAKE_AUTOPTR_INCLUDED 1

#include <memory>
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
#include <type_traits>
#endif

namespace fake_autoptr_ns
namespace detail
template <class T>
void destroy(T* goner)
delete goner;



template <class T>
class fake_autoptr
public:
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
std::unique_ptr<T, decltype(&detail::destroy<T>)> smartptr_;
typedef decltype(smartptr_) smartptr_type;
#else
std::auto_ptr<T> smartptr_;
typedef std::auto_ptr<T> smartptr_type;
#endif


#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
fake_autoptr() = delete;
~fake_autoptr() = default;
#else
private:
fake_autoptr();
public:
#endif


#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
template <class CtorArg>
explicit fake_autoptr(CtorArg something) : smartptr_(something, detail::destroy<T>)
static_assert(std::is_same<T*, CtorArg>::value, "constructor argument must be T*");

#else
template <class CtorArg>
explicit fake_autoptr(CtorArg something) : smartptr_(something)
#endif


// delete special member functions
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
explicit fake_autoptr(const fake_autoptr<T>&) = delete;
explicit fake_autoptr(fake_autoptr<T>&&) = delete;
fake_autoptr& operator=(const fake_autoptr<T>&) = delete;
fake_autoptr& operator=(fake_autoptr<T> &&) = delete;
#else
private:
explicit fake_autoptr(const fake_autoptr<T>&);
fake_autoptr& operator=(const fake_autoptr<T>&);
public:
#endif

#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
T& operator*() = delete;
T* get() = delete;
#endif

const smartptr_type& operator->() const
return smartptr_;


smartptr_type& operator->()
return smartptr_;


T* release()
return smartptr_.release();


#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
const T* release() const = delete;

void reset() = delete;

void reset() const = delete;
#endif
;


#endif // FAKE_AUTOPTR_FAKE_AUTOPTR_INCLUDED


This is less interesting, but here's a smoke test to make sure it works



#include "fake_autoptr.hpp"
#include <cstdio>

struct TwoInts
int int1;
int int2;
void print_first_int()
printf("1st %dn", int1);

void print_second_int()
printf("2nd %dn", int2);

;


TwoInts* GetInt()

using namespace fake_autoptr_ns;
TwoInts *t = new TwoInts();
t->int1 = 3;
t->int2 = 7;
fake_autoptr<TwoInts> ptr(t);
ptr->print_first_int();
ptr->print_second_int();
return ptr.release();


int main()
TwoInts *t = GetInt();
delete t;
return 0;







c++ c++11 pointers c++03






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 min ago







Gregory Nisbet

















asked 4 hours ago









Gregory NisbetGregory Nisbet

133111




133111











  • $begingroup$
    Can you explain your use-case better? When would I want to use fake_autoptr<T> in preference to std::unique_ptr<T>? The only advantage to std::auto_ptr is that it compiles as C++03... but your fake_autoptr is C++11-only, so that's not why you're using it. Why not just use std::unique_ptr?
    $endgroup$
    – Quuxplusone
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Quuxplusone, I've edited the code so it compiles as either C++11 or C++03 ...
    $endgroup$
    – Gregory Nisbet
    1 hour ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Can you explain your use-case better? When would I want to use fake_autoptr<T> in preference to std::unique_ptr<T>? The only advantage to std::auto_ptr is that it compiles as C++03... but your fake_autoptr is C++11-only, so that's not why you're using it. Why not just use std::unique_ptr?
    $endgroup$
    – Quuxplusone
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Quuxplusone, I've edited the code so it compiles as either C++11 or C++03 ...
    $endgroup$
    – Gregory Nisbet
    1 hour ago















$begingroup$
Can you explain your use-case better? When would I want to use fake_autoptr<T> in preference to std::unique_ptr<T>? The only advantage to std::auto_ptr is that it compiles as C++03... but your fake_autoptr is C++11-only, so that's not why you're using it. Why not just use std::unique_ptr?
$endgroup$
– Quuxplusone
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
Can you explain your use-case better? When would I want to use fake_autoptr<T> in preference to std::unique_ptr<T>? The only advantage to std::auto_ptr is that it compiles as C++03... but your fake_autoptr is C++11-only, so that's not why you're using it. Why not just use std::unique_ptr?
$endgroup$
– Quuxplusone
2 hours ago












$begingroup$
@Quuxplusone, I've edited the code so it compiles as either C++11 or C++03 ...
$endgroup$
– Gregory Nisbet
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
@Quuxplusone, I've edited the code so it compiles as either C++11 or C++03 ...
$endgroup$
– Gregory Nisbet
1 hour ago










0






active

oldest

votes











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

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: "196"
;
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: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
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%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f215798%2fwrapper-for-common-subset-of-auto-ptr-and-unique-ptr-api%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























0






active

oldest

votes








0






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!


  • 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.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


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%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f215798%2fwrapper-for-common-subset-of-auto-ptr-and-unique-ptr-api%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

名間水力發電廠 目录 沿革 設施 鄰近設施 註釋 外部連結 导航菜单23°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.7113923°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.71139計畫概要原始内容臺灣第一座BOT 模式開發的水力發電廠-名間水力電廠名間水力發電廠 水利署首件BOT案原始内容《小檔案》名間電廠 首座BOT水力發電廠原始内容名間電廠BOT - 經濟部水利署中區水資源局

Prove that NP is closed under karp reduction?Space(n) not closed under Karp reductions - what about NTime(n)?Class P is closed under rotation?Prove or disprove that $NL$ is closed under polynomial many-one reductions$mathbfNC_2$ is closed under log-space reductionOn Karp reductionwhen can I know if a class (complexity) is closed under reduction (cook/karp)Check if class $PSPACE$ is closed under polyonomially space reductionIs NPSPACE also closed under polynomial-time reduction and under log-space reduction?Prove PSPACE is closed under complement?Prove PSPACE is closed under union?

Is my guitar’s action too high? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Strings too stiff on a recently purchased acoustic guitar | Cort AD880CEIs the action of my guitar really high?Μy little finger is too weak to play guitarWith guitar, how long should I give my fingers to strengthen / callous?When playing a fret the guitar sounds mutedPlaying (Barre) chords up the guitar neckI think my guitar strings are wound too tight and I can't play barre chordsF barre chord on an SG guitarHow to find to the right strings of a barre chord by feel?High action on higher fret on my steel acoustic guitar