我在谷歌代码搜索上找到的

    // Constructs a tuple with 2 elements (fucking idiot, use std::pair instead!)
    template <typename T0,typename T1>
    inline tuple <T0,T1> make_tuple (const T0& t0,
            const T1& t1) {
            tuple <T0,T1> t;
            t.get<0>() = t0;
            t.get<1>() = t1;
            return t;
    }

Re eating one's own dogfood: We have the same term in our workplace (granted, only because I introduced it). My code is peppered with comments that say "TODO" and indicate something that ought to be done eventually, but a comment saying "DOGFOOD" (both keywords are always at the beginning of the comment, in all caps) means something that must be done before this program can be used even internally. It's a handy thing to search for, as the word "dogfood" is never going to appear in a quoted string - if it does, I can always just say "dog-food" or something - so even a case-insensitive search will come up with the right results.

Regarding zeroing the accumulator: I've done exactly the same thing when programming an Intel 80x86 (I started on the 8086 and moved up from there into the modern Pentiums). XORing a register with itself is the quickest and tightest way to clear it. Using "MOV AX,0" requires three bytes (opcode and two bytes of literal 16-bit zero), whereas "XOR AX,AX" is only two; it's even more noticeable with the 386-and-higher extended registers, where "MOV EAX,0" requires five bytes (four bytes of 32-bit zero). My C/C++ compiler always zeroes registers this way, so I'd assume it's still the best way (although I haven't studied opcode timing tables in ages, and probably both XOR reg,reg and MOV reg,imm take one clock).

“这永远不会发生”。

朋友，这是我的临终遗言……

long john; // silver

/////////////////////////////////////// this is a well commented line

大概30页的xslt的中间部分

<!-- Here be dragons  -->