Memes.
Papa: nice catch on the weird d3d10 constant. I like your idea of replacing zeromemory etc. with a simple initializer.
Cam: Partly, my philosophy is that if a function qualifies for constexpr, I want to make it so (picard.gif) because shit, I like compile time stuff. Of course, any compiler worth its salt would probably be able to make that optimization anyways in most situations at a lower level, but it's nice to have that shit explicit. Still, the problem is making something constexpr that doesn't really need to be constexpr, then somebody writes some code that depends on that constexprness, then later you make a change that breaks the constexprness (because you heck, you added that constexpr in for shits and giggles in the first place). One you go constexpr, you never go back. So yeah, I will reconsider constexpr where it is used and make sure it I really want it.
I like the syntax for nameless structs and shit, but you're right it's not standard and I too debated it while writing the new framework code. Still undecided (this tutorial is already locked into Visual studio, so im not worried about portability. If Microsoft changes their mind on this non-standard extensio though, it'll fuck over my code)
Nurlan: problem likely isn't your machine, it's your toolset. What version VS are you using to build the solution?
cyboryxmen: I like your crazy metaprogramming style cyborg. I wasn't aware of any situations where the static constexpr would not be inlined. Still, I think i'll stick with the constexpr stuff since it'll be simpler for a beginner to understand imo. That for the input man
Thanks for all the feedback guys. Seems like no major problems except for Nurlan on the compatibility side of things. I will massage the code a little more when I get back to Tokyo in a couple of days. Peace out.
--