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: