hi, i am reading a C++ book, it mentions a term non-trivial object.
what i understand is:
if a object has:
a) trivial constructor
b) trivial assignment operator
c) trivial destructor

then it is a trvial object, otherwise it is a non trivial obect, right?

thanks

* baibaichen:[color=blue]
> hi, i am reading a C++ book, it mentions a term non-trivial object.
> what i understand is:
> if a object has:
> a) trivial constructor
> b) trivial assignment operator
> c) trivial destructor
>
> then it is a trvial object, otherwise it is a non trivial obect, right?[/color]

"Trivial object" is not a term defined by the standard or in common use as a
technical term. It probably means just what it says, like, "green bird".

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

"baibaichen" <baibaichen@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137030697.498096.111670@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...[color=blue]
> hi, i am reading a C++ book, it mentions a term non-trivial object.
> what i understand is:
> if a object has:
> a) trivial constructor
> b) trivial assignment operator
> c) trivial destructor
>
> then it is a trvial object, otherwise it is a non trivial obect, right?
>
> thanks[/color]

"trivial object" is not a standard C++ term. He is probably refering to POD
or not. POD being plain old data.

"baibaichen" writes:
[color=blue]
> hi, i am reading a C++ book, it mentions a term non-trivial object.
> what i understand is:
> if a object has:
> a) trivial constructor
> b) trivial assignment operator
> c) trivial destructor
>
> then it is a trvial object, otherwise it is a non trivial obect, right?[/color]

There are a bunch of hits on Google for <trivial object c++>.