🚀 go-pugleaf

I have 4 ideas about C++ and a question.


1) String literals
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
String literals should be const char* instead of char* (if it is not
already the case).


2) Placement operators
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
class Object {
        void    operator+ // or / or whatever
                         (Object& result, const Object& b) const;
        void    operator* (Object& result) const;
        Object  operator* (const Object& result) const; // old one
}

should be called respectively by:
a = b + c;

and a = *b;

and (old one) a*b;

This will solve the [well-known] problem of copying the result into a temporary.
The compatibility will be preserved since old syntax will be allowed to.

3) Use of explicit keyword
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
//========= Test.h =========
class Base {
    public:
        virtual void VirtualFunc ();
};

class Derived : public Base {
    public:
        void VirtualFunc () { }
};

//========= Caller.cp =========
#include <Test.h>
class Derived2 : public Derived {
    public:
        void VirtualFunc ();
};

//========= Foo.cp =========
#include <Test.h>

void    foo (explicit Derived* object)
{
    object.VirtualFunc (); // nop (compiler does not generate code for this)

    Derived* AnyDerivedObject = object; // ok
}

void    foo2 (Derived* object)
{
    object.VirtualFunc (); // object can be Derived2

    explicit Derived* RealDerivedObject = object; // error
}

The meaning of explicit could be: while a derived class ptr [resp. ref] can be
convert to a base class ptr [ref], it can't be converted to a base class 
explicit ptr [ref].

So explicit would be a type qualifier; this usage is different with:

> Rich Hickey
> rich@rcs-hq.mhs.compuserve.com

> I propose that the explicit keyword be allowed as a qualifier of a class
> definition, such qualification taking the form of:

> explicit class X{
>   //the definition of X
>   };

Here, X cannot be derived but my Derived can be so I think my idea is better
(please fell free comment/criticise this assertion).


4) Conversion of Type** to const Type**
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's ok, this is an error; but why cannot Type** be converted to const Type* 
const* ?

void    foo ()
{
    typedef int Type;
    Type        i;
    const Type  ci = 2;
    Type*       pi = &i;
    Type**      ppi = &pi;

    const Type** ppci = ppi;            // error because
    *ppci = &ci;                        // now pi == &ci
    *pi = 0;                            // and now we modify ci

    const Type*const* pcpci = ppi;      // no problem because
    *pcpci = &ci;                       // this is impossible (since *pcpci is 
const)
}


Now a question:

Will there be any way to redefine (overload) normal && or || on class ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I mean, now:

class Int {
    public:
        operator int () const { return i; }
        operator && (int) const;
        operator || (int) const;
        Int (int I) : i(I) { }

    private:
        int     i;
};

int     Func ()
{
    cout << "called\n";
    return 1;
}

void    foo ()
{
    int i (1);
    Int I (1);

    if (i || Func ()) // called is not printed
        ;
    if (I || Func ()) // called is printed
        ;
}

One could think that the standard should be change in order to support real
overloaded operator && and ||.

I can't see the point of doing that, so if it's the case for you to don't ask
me nor criticise.

Valentin Bonnard
bonnardv@pratique.fr




[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]