🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3vo6iv$grf@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>,
   maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) wrote:
>In article <1995Jul19.180847.17243@ptolemy-ethernet.arc.nasa.gov>,
>Paul J. Lucas <pjl@kronos.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>	Why shouldn't I be able to do:
>>
>>		list< int > x;
>>		list< int >::iterator i;
>>		int *p = i;	// use list< int >::operator int*()

Do you mean list<int>::iterator::operator int*() here?

>>
>>	i.e., convert the iterator to its underlying pointer?
>
>	Use:
>
>	int *p = &*i;

Right.  Also, Paul, for an entertaining treatment of why implicit conversions 
(such as the operator int*() above) can become quite evil and foul-smelling in 
practice even for their original programmer, see Scott Meyers' column in this 
month's C/C++ User's Journal.

This is one of the rare examples where an otherwise neat and clean-cut 
standards-conforming C++ compiler will go out of its way to silently and 
mericlessly destroy your code given the slightest excuse, and will go about 
doing so in the most devilishly difficult-to-debug way it can find to boot... 
:-)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Herb Sutter                 2228 Urwin, Ste 102         voice (416) 618-0184
Connected Object Solutions  Oakville ON Canada L6L 2T2    fax (905) 847-6019