[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [OT] C++ question re. dyn. mem.

On Wednesday 06 August 2003 09:30, Sebastian Kapfer wrote:
> > They do. My app would be broken from the start if I could not rely on
> > this capability.  This style of type conversion is covered in elementary
> > C++ books by Bjarne.  It's not unusual.
> Exactly where? I don't remember such casts from Bjarne's book. Maybe with
> a big warning sign next to the code?

C++ 2nd Ed. page 96 and there is a warning to avoid "explicit type 
conversion".  I choose to use casting despite the warning.  It's fine to 
point out potential problems with using it, but it's not useful to denigrate 
a person's choices and style.

I learned last night that there is a 3rd Ed.  Evidently things have changed 
and the complex language has gotten more complex - trying to be all things to 
all people.  If this continues, C++ will be too complex for normal 
programmers.  C++ should be backwards compatible, so I think my 2nd Ed. suits 
my needs.

I use C++ features for templates, encapsulation, STL, inheritance (not much), 
and "objectification".  I do low level stuff, so I want to use the C 
capabilites.  If the C capabilities are removed from future versions of C++, 
then I will recode for C.  This demonstrates that I need what C offers more 
than I need what C++ offers.
Mike Mueller

Reply to: