Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2016 April 18
| Computing desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < April 17 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 19 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
April 18 edit
Finding a website's owner edit
I'm sure that we have an article about the concept of a website that lists who owns what domain names, but I don't know what to call it. I figured it was "DNSR" or something of the sort, because when I try to go to a nonexistent website, my TWC Internet service sends me to http://www.dnsrsearch.com, but neither DNSR nor DNSR server exists. The site's preferences page mentions that I can opt out of the "domain landing service", but domain landing service also doesn't exist. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- WHOIS? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- So it is. http://www.domaininformation.de/whois provided the information I need (in this case, the fact that http://www.gogle.com, an easy-for-me-to-make typo, is owned by the folks that operate http://www.google.com. I had no idea that WHOIS handled this kind of thing; I thought it was just for looking up the entity to whom an IP address was registered. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- WHOIS is used to look up the organization for whom a block of IP addresses is registered as well as look up the registrant information for a domain name. It is becoming more and more popular for domain name registrations to be private, so you can't use WHOIS to get domain name owners from that. Further, the owner of a domain name is not necessarily the owner of a website. I own many domain names that go to websites that I do not own in any way. I am paid to let the website owners use my domain names. 209.149.115.199 (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
C++ term for a trivially memcpy-able object edit
There's a C++ term-of-art, which is on the tip of my tongue but I can't remember. It's used to describe a class whose instances the compiler can safely copy without a copy constructor - i.e. the compiler simply emits an inline memcpy. So it's for classes with only members of elementary types without constructors (or aggregates thereof). It's an acryonym - something like SPOSH or SPOD or the like. I don't see it in Copy constructor (C++) or Object copying. Can anyone remember what the C++ folks call these things? Thanks. 87.114.241.105 (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- The abbreviation you're thinking of is probably POD, plain old data, although the technical term is "trivially copyable". See, for example, this site. Tevildo (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed - PODS was clearly what I was almost remembering. Should there be a link to that in the Copy constructor (C++) article? Thanks for your help. 87.114.241.105 (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)