Subject: DocOz Episode: Get a Flat Stomach

From: goodbye to Muffin-Tops <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:19:49 -0700

Be Beach Ready Come 4th of July w/ Doc Oz...

Looking to reboot before Swimsuit Season starts?
Want to lose 25 lbs in ONE Month?
Doc Oz is taking Fat-Melting to the next level with 3 Simple steps. 

1. Do NOT skip Meals
 
2. View this Crucial Step Here -> http://www.waterproofjab.com/slim/7days/docoz.episode

3. Watch the fat melt off your body.

Best Part of Doc Oz's plan is that you can still go out to eat and continue watching your waist shrink. 
>> Find all Details Here http://www.waterproofjab.com/slim/7days/docoz.episode

DocOz Show Recap

To edit your wellness subscription, write Member Update Systems
- at- 9 1 6 7 R O A D 1 7 7 -Oakwood, Ohio 45873 or http://www.waterproofjab.com/w3ihrf/gno39t/srng949/sjrfo39ru/dhmppwy.srtueoo

Actually the explicit instantiation needs to be in a .cpp file which has access to the definitions for all of Foo's member functions, rather than in the header.   Mankarse May 28 '11 at 10:21 
1	  	
Excellent answer: thank you!   Ziggy Oct 10 '11 at 0:24
1	  	
"the compiler needs to have access to the implementation of the methods, to instantiate them with the template argument (in this case int). If these implementations were not in the header, they wouldn't be accessible" But why is an implementation in the .cpp file not accessible to the compiler? A compiler can also access .cpp information, how else would it turn them into .obj files? EDIT: answer to this question is in the link provided in this answer   xcrypt Jan 14 '12 at 23:56 
7	  	
I don't think this explains the question that clearly, the key thing is obviously related with the compilation UNIT which is not mentioned in this post   zinking Aug 23 '12 at 9:47
  	  	
is 'struct' means the same than 'class' here ?   Gabson Feb 21 at 13:55
1	  	
@Gabson: structs and classes are equivalent with the exception that the default access modifier for classes is "private", while it is public for structs. There are some other tiny differences that you can learn by looking at this question.   Luc Touraille Feb 21 at 14:12
  	  	
@xcrypt, when compiling some other .cpp file, the .cpp with the implementation is unknown (and might even not be available, think library).   vonbrand Mar 10 at 2:49
assword protection (and file format) is radically different than Excel 2003. I included some specifics about it in my answer below. In my opinion, the password protected option on an Excel 2007 file is the first time in Microsoft Office history that they have produced a reasonably secure file.   Stewbob Sep 10 '10 at 17:42
  	  	
it's miracle..I was able to do this for some 4 excel projects..SO rocks..   javanoob Mar 12 '12 at 17:39
  	  	
I've recently had to do this in a project at work to pull out and archive source code for a variety of Excel applications (for which this post was invaluable). Two clarifications: (1) The minimum size appears to be 133 bytes for a 1-character password. It's pretty useful to have a pre-calculated 133-byte set of values too, since (2) Whilst padding the individual hashes works, there's no need. You can simply pad the end of the whole block after the GC="..." entry with null characters until you reach the length of the original file.   tobriand Jul 20 '13 at 11:13 
  	  	
@tobriand or just replace the existing characters with spaces   Nirk Oct 8 '13 at 2:26
  	  	
Spaces might work too - at the time I was having to use an ADO stream in order to replicate a hex editor in VBA, since at least if you try and do this with notepad as your editor, the file becomes corrupt (probably due to line break conversions, I'd guess, but not sure). Given that, I used Nulls, since in my experience they're more reliable (and either way, need to use a character), but if you have access to a proper editing tool, spaces might work just as we  	  	
@Deduplicator: No, the members of a class are private by default, not protected