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++

Patience, young "Padovan"

Falsification in Math vs Science

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

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

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?

The difference between dialogue marks

How come people say “Would of”?

Realistic Alternatives to Dust: What Else Could Feed a Plankton Bloom?

Does light intensity oscillate really fast since it is a wave?

aging parents with no investments

In microwave frequencies, do you use a circulator when you need a (near) perfect diode?

What does "sndry explns" mean in one of the Hitchhiker's guide books?

I see my dog run

Why Did Howard Stark Use All The Vibranium They Had On A Prototype Shield?

Inflated grade on resume at previous job, might former employer tell new employer?

Is there a name of the flying bionic bird?

JSON.serialize: is it possible to suppress null values of a map?

Lethal sonic weapons

Is flight data recorder erased after every flight?

Why is the maximum length of openwrt’s root password 8 characters?

What is the best strategy for white in this position?

Are there any other methods to apply to solving simultaneous equations?

Idiomatic way to prevent slicing?

What tool would a Roman-age civilization have to grind silver and other metals into dust?



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;








9















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






























    9















    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


























      9












      9








      9


      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 3 hours ago









      rrauenza

      3,55921835




      3,55921835










      asked 6 hours ago









      user463035818user463035818

      18.8k42970




      18.8k42970






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          12














          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

























          • 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
            5 hours ago











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

            – user463035818
            5 hours ago






          • 1





            @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

            – NathanOliver
            5 hours ago






          • 3





            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
            5 hours ago



















          4














          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














            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


















            • 4





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

              – user463035818
              6 hours ago











            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









            12














            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

























            • 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
              5 hours ago











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

              – user463035818
              5 hours ago






            • 1





              @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

              – NathanOliver
              5 hours ago






            • 3





              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
              5 hours ago
















            12














            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

























            • 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
              5 hours ago











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

              – user463035818
              5 hours ago






            • 1





              @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

              – NathanOliver
              5 hours ago






            • 3





              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
              5 hours ago














            12












            12








            12







            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 5 hours ago

























            answered 6 hours ago









            NathanOliverNathanOliver

            98.5k16138218




            98.5k16138218












            • 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
              5 hours ago











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

              – user463035818
              5 hours ago






            • 1





              @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

              – NathanOliver
              5 hours ago






            • 3





              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
              5 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
              5 hours ago











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

              – user463035818
              5 hours ago






            • 1





              @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

              – NathanOliver
              5 hours ago






            • 3





              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
              5 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
            5 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
            5 hours ago













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

            – user463035818
            5 hours ago





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

            – user463035818
            5 hours ago




            1




            1





            @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

            – NathanOliver
            5 hours ago





            @user463035818 Yep. I've been using it since I've asked that Q.

            – NathanOliver
            5 hours ago




            3




            3





            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
            5 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
            5 hours ago














            4














            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



























              4














              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

























                4












                4








                4







                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 6 hours ago









                Richard HodgesRichard Hodges

                57k658105




                57k658105





















                    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


















                    • 4





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

                      – user463035818
                      6 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


















                    • 4





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

                      – user463035818
                      6 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 6 hours ago









                    eerorikaeerorika

                    89.8k664136




                    89.8k664136







                    • 4





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

                      – user463035818
                      6 hours ago












                    • 4





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

                      – user463035818
                      6 hours ago







                    4




                    4





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

                    – user463035818
                    6 hours ago





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

                    – user463035818
                    6 hours ago

















                    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 comparative studies done between Ashtavakra Gita and Buddhim?How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?Can you criticise or improve Ven. Bodhi's description of MahayanaWas the doctrine of 'Anatta', accepted as doctrine by modern Buddhism, actually taught by the Buddha?Relationship between Buddhism, Hinduism and Yoga?Comparison of Nirvana, Tao and Brahman/AtmaIs there a distinction between “ego identity” and “craving/hating”?Are there many differences between Taoism and Buddhism?Loss of “faith” in buddhismSimilarity between creation in Abrahamic religions and beginning of life in Earth mentioned Agganna Sutta?Are there studies about the difference between meditating in the morning versus in the evening?Can one follow Hinduism and Buddhism at the same time?Are there any prohibitions on participating in other religion's practices?Psychology of 'flow'

                    Where else does the Shulchan Aruch quote an authority by name?Parashat Metzora+HagadolPesach/PassoverShulchan Aruch UTF-8Anonymous glosses in the Shulchan AruchWhy is the Shulchan Aruch definitive?Siman 32, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch: UntranslatedLitvaks/Yeshivish and Shulchan AruchBuying a Shulchan AruchEnglish version of SHULCHAN ARUCHIs there any place where Shulchan Aruch rules with the Rosh against the Rif and Rambam?Are there practices where Sepharadim do not hold by Shulchan Aruch?5th part of the shulchan aruch

                    fallocate: fallocate failed: Text file busy in Ubuntu 17.04? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)defragmenting and increasing performance of old lubuntu system with swap partitionIssue with increasing the root partition from the swapthis /usr/bin/dpkg returned error || ubuntu-16.04, 64bitDefault 17.04 swap file locationHow to Resize Ubuntu 17.04 Zesty Swap file size?Ubuntu freezes from online formsMy Laptop is not starting after upgrade ubuntu 16.04 (Kernel 4.8.0-38 to 04.10.0-36)hcp: ERROR: FALLOCATE FAILED!Not sure my swap is being usedWine 3.0 asking for more virtual free swap