C++ – What’s the shortest code to write directly to a memory address in C/C++

EDIT Since c++17, some parts of the standard library were removed. Fortunately, starting with c++11, we have lambdas which are a superior solution.

#include <algorithm> 
#include <cctype>
#include <locale>

// trim from start (in place)
static inline void ltrim(std::string &s) {
    s.erase(s.begin(), std::find_if(s.begin(), s.end(), [](unsigned char ch) {
        return !std::isspace(ch);
    }));
}

// trim from end (in place)
static inline void rtrim(std::string &s) {
    s.erase(std::find_if(s.rbegin(), s.rend(), [](unsigned char ch) {
        return !std::isspace(ch);
    }).base(), s.end());
}

// trim from both ends (in place)
static inline void trim(std::string &s) {
    ltrim(s);
    rtrim(s);
}

// trim from start (copying)
static inline std::string ltrim_copy(std::string s) {
    ltrim(s);
    return s;
}

// trim from end (copying)
static inline std::string rtrim_copy(std::string s) {
    rtrim(s);
    return s;
}

// trim from both ends (copying)
static inline std::string trim_copy(std::string s) {
    trim(s);
    return s;
}

Thanks to https://stackoverflow.com/a/44973498/524503 for bringing up the modern solution.

Original answer:

I tend to use one of these 3 for my trimming needs:

#include <algorithm> 
#include <functional> 
#include <cctype>
#include <locale>

// trim from start
static inline std::string &ltrim(std::string &s) {
    s.erase(s.begin(), std::find_if(s.begin(), s.end(),
            std::not1(std::ptr_fun<int, int>(std::isspace))));
    return s;
}

// trim from end
static inline std::string &rtrim(std::string &s) {
    s.erase(std::find_if(s.rbegin(), s.rend(),
            std::not1(std::ptr_fun<int, int>(std::isspace))).base(), s.end());
    return s;
}

// trim from both ends
static inline std::string &trim(std::string &s) {
    return ltrim(rtrim(s));
}

They are fairly self-explanatory and work very well.

EDIT: BTW, I have std::ptr_fun in there to help disambiguate std::isspace because there is actually a second definition which supports locales. This could have been a cast just the same, but I tend to like this better.

EDIT: To address some comments about accepting a parameter by reference, modifying and returning it. I Agree. An implementation that I would likely prefer would be two sets of functions, one for in place and one which makes a copy. A better set of examples would be:

#include <algorithm> 
#include <functional> 
#include <cctype>
#include <locale>

// trim from start (in place)
static inline void ltrim(std::string &s) {
    s.erase(s.begin(), std::find_if(s.begin(), s.end(),
            std::not1(std::ptr_fun<int, int>(std::isspace))));
}

// trim from end (in place)
static inline void rtrim(std::string &s) {
    s.erase(std::find_if(s.rbegin(), s.rend(),
            std::not1(std::ptr_fun<int, int>(std::isspace))).base(), s.end());
}

// trim from both ends (in place)
static inline void trim(std::string &s) {
    ltrim(s);
    rtrim(s);
}

// trim from start (copying)
static inline std::string ltrim_copy(std::string s) {
    ltrim(s);
    return s;
}

// trim from end (copying)
static inline std::string rtrim_copy(std::string s) {
    rtrim(s);
    return s;
}

// trim from both ends (copying)
static inline std::string trim_copy(std::string s) {
    trim(s);
    return s;
}

I am keeping the original answer above though for context and in the interest of keeping the high voted answer still available.

Oh man, one of my pet peeves.

inline is more like static or extern than a directive telling the compiler to inline your functions. extern, static, inline are linkage directives, used almost exclusively by the linker, not the compiler.

It is said that inline hints to the compiler that you think the function should be inlined. That may have been true in 1998, but a decade later the compiler needs no such hints. Not to mention humans are usually wrong when it comes to optimizing code, so most compilers flat out ignore the 'hint'.

• static - the variable/function name cannot be used in other translation units. Linker needs to make sure it doesn't accidentally use a statically defined variable/function from another translation unit.

• extern - use this variable/function name in this translation unit but don't complain if it isn't defined. The linker will sort it out and make sure all the code that tried to use some extern symbol has its address.

• inline - this function will be defined in multiple translation units, don't worry about it. The linker needs to make sure all translation units use a single instance of the variable/function.

Note: Generally, declaring templates inline is pointless, as they have the linkage semantics of inline already. However, explicit specialization and instantiation of templates require inline to be used.

Specific answers to your questions:

• When should I write the keyword 'inline' for a function/method in C++?

  Only when you want the function to be defined in a header. More exactly only when the function's definition can show up in multiple translation units. It's a good idea to define small (as in one liner) functions in the header file as it gives the compiler more information to work with while optimizing your code. It also increases compilation time.

• When should I not write the keyword 'inline' for a function/method in C++?

  Don't add inline just because you think your code will run faster if the compiler inlines it.

• When will the compiler not know when to make a function/method 'inline'?

  Generally, the compiler will be able to do this better than you. However, the compiler doesn't have the option to inline code if it doesn't have the function definition. In maximally optimized code usually all private methods are inlined whether you ask for it or not.

  As an aside to prevent inlining in GCC, use __attribute__(( noinline )), and in Visual Studio, use __declspec(noinline).

• Does it matter if an application is multithreaded when one writes 'inline' for a function/method?

  Multithreading doesn't affect inlining in any way.