[C++] strange problem with std::ostringstr eam

[Eric Boutin]

Hi ! I have a strange problem with a std::ostringstr eam..

code :
#include <sstream>

/*...*/

std::ostringstr eam ss();
ss << "\"\"" << libpath << "\"\" \"\"" << argfilename << "\"\" \"\""
<< outfilename << "\"\""; //line 75

std::string callstring = ss.str(); //line 77

/* ... */

I don't have a undeclared identifier error when declaring std::ostringstr eam
ss();
however, I have thoses stranges errors :

c:\documents and settings\eric\m es documents\progr amming\stdcpp dynamic
code\loadlib.hp p(75) : error C2296: '<<' : illegal, left operand has type
'class std::basic_ostr ingstream<char, struct std::char_trait s<char>,class
std::allocator< char> > (__cdec
l *)(void)'
c:\documents and settings\eric\m es documents\progr amming\stdcpp dynamic
code\loadlib.hp p(75) : error C2297: '<<' : illegal, right operand has type
'char [3]'
c:\documents and settings\eric\m es documents\progr amming\stdcpp dynamic
code\loadlib.hp p(77) : error C2228: left of '.str' must have
class/struct/union type
I use vc++ 6.0

that's a very strange error and I really do not have a clue how to solve
it.. I mean.. ss is not a undeclared identifier.. and it's really defined
as a std::ostringstr eam.. but I have thoses errors...
any help appreciated.. really !!

thanks !

-Eric Boutin

[Rob Williscroft]

Eric Boutin wrote in news:t_******** **************@ weber.videotron .net:

This:

std::ostringstr eam ss();

is a function declaration

std::ostringstr eam ss( void );

change it to

std::ostringstr eam ss;

Rob.
--
http://www.victim-prime.dsl.pipex.com/

[Eric Boutin]

This is a normal behavior or a behavior from a crappy compiler ?

"Rob Williscroft" <rt*@freenet.RE MOVE.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news:Xn******** *************** ***********@195 .129.110.130...

Eric Boutin wrote in news:t_******** **************@ weber.videotron .net:

This:

std::ostringstr eam ss();

is a function declaration

std::ostringstr eam ss( void );

change it to

std::ostringstr eam ss;

Rob.
--
http://www.victim-prime.dsl.pipex.com/

[Rob Williscroft]

Eric Boutin wrote in news:eW******** ************@wa gner.videotron. net:

This is a normal behavior or a behavior from a crappy compiler ?

Its normal standard conforming behaviour.

[snip]. <<-- hint

Rob.
--
http://www.victim-prime.dsl.pipex.com/

[Dan W.]

On 03 Dec 2003 11:54:53 GMT, Rob Williscroft
<rt*@freenet.RE MOVE.co.uk> wrote:

Eric Boutin wrote in news:eW******** ************@wa gner.videotron. net:

This is a normal behavior or a behavior from a crappy compiler ?

Its normal standard conforming behaviour.

[snip]. <<-- hint

Rob.

I've always been a bit confused by declarations of variables
explicitly calling the default constructor. And now I wonder how would
the compiler not interpret

std::ostringstr eam ss();

as a forward declaration of a function returning an ostringstream.
When exactly is it necessary to add "()" to class instantiation?

Would that only be when instantiating a derived type in the argument
list of a function call like

class bar {};
void foo(bar);
class dbar : bar {};
...........
foo( dbar temp_db() );
?

dan

[Rob Williscroft]

Dan W. wrote in news:8j******** *************** *********@4ax.c om:

On 03 Dec 2003 11:54:53 GMT, Rob Williscroft
<rt*@freenet.RE MOVE.co.uk> wrote:

Eric Boutin wrote in news:eW******** ************@wa gner.videotron. net:

I've always been a bit confused by declarations of variables
explicitly calling the default constructor. And now I wonder how would
the compiler not interpret

std::ostringstr eam ss();

as a forward declaration of a function returning an ostringstream.
When exactly is it necessary to add "()" to class instantiation?
Well never (almost). You could write:

std::ostringstr eam ss = std::ostringstr eam();

Unfortunatly it won't work in this case as the streams lack copy-ctor's
but *fortunatly* it unnesassery as the compiler will default construct
ss for you anyway.

Would that only be when instantiating a derived type in the argument
list of a function call like

The one and only time it's truly usefull to explicitly call a default
constructor is when initialising a POD (int, double, struct without
constructors etc).

struct X
{
int a; /* a is POD no default constuctor */
X() : a() {}
};

Though a( 0 ) would be just as good above. This is truly usfull within
templates.

template < typename T > struct Y
{
T b;
Y() : b() {}
};

Now Y::b is properly initialized even if T is a type (say int)
without a default constructor. Also unless for some reason we
know that T will always be initializable from 0, b( 0 ) won't
work.
class bar {};
void foo(bar);
class dbar : bar {};
..........
foo( dbar temp_db() );

Did you mean

foo( bar() );

or maybe

foo( dbar() ); // watch the slicing !!
struct Z { /*whatever*/ };

int foo( Z const &z = Z() )
{
return 0;
}

Not from all of the above the only place I write variable_name() is
in the initialization list of stucts X and Y, otherwise its type().
Rob.
--
http://www.victim-prime.dsl.pipex.com/

[Dan W.]

Thank you!

I guess I had foggy memories coming up, like in nameless temporary
construction, such as

class foggy_memory {};
....
throw( foggy_memory() );

Such off sightings often throw me off for a sec... ;-)