cast operator for built in to class?

[Gernot Frisch]

Hi,

I can define a class C that can handle a const char* and provide an
operator:
C::operator string() const;

can I define such a cast operator for const char* instead of class C??
--
-Gernot
int main(int argc, char** argv) {printf
("%silto%c%cf%c gl%ssic%ccom%c" , "ma", 58, 'g', 64, "ba", 46, 10);}

_______________ _______________ __________
Looking for a good game? Do it yourself!
GLBasic - you can do
www.GLBasic.com

[Jacques Labuschagne]

Gernot Frisch wrote:

Hi,

I can define a class C that can handle a const char* and provide an
operator:
C::operator string() const;

can I define such a cast operator for const char* instead of class C??

Surely you can just define a (non-explicit) constructor for C that takes
a const char* as its argument... Then something like
C c;
c = "hello world";
would create a nameless temporary using C::C(const char*) and copy to
'c' using C::operator=(co nst C&).

Jacques.

[Gernot Frisch]

"Jacques Labuschagne" <ja*****@clawsh rimp.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Y5******** ***********@new s02.tsnz.net...

Gernot Frisch wrote:

Hi,

I can define a class C that can handle a const char* and provide an operator:
C::operator string() const;

can I define such a cast operator for const char* instead of class C??

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^

Surely you can just define a (non-explicit) constructor for C that

takes a const char* as its argument... Then something like
C c;
c = "hello world";
would create a nameless temporary using C::C(const char*) and copy to 'c' using C::operator=(co nst C&).

That would mean I have to define class "C", but I just want to have
class "string"

-Gernot

[Karl Heinz Buchegger]

Gernot Frisch wrote:

Hi,

I can define a class C that can handle a const char* and provide an
operator:
C::operator string() const;

can I define such a cast operator for const char* instead of class C??

If I understand you, you want something like this

operator const char*( string txt )
{
return txt.c_str();
}

The answer is: No. Conversion operators have to be a member of a class.

--
Karl Heinz Buchegger
kb******@gascad .at

[Gernot Frisch]

"Karl Heinz Buchegger" <kb******@gasca d.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:41******** *******@gascad. at...

Gernot Frisch wrote:

Hi,

I can define a class C that can handle a const char* and provide an operator:
C::operator string() const;

can I define such a cast operator for const char* instead of class

C??
If I understand you, you want something like this

operator const char*( string txt )
{
return txt.c_str();
}

The answer is: No. Conversion operators have to be a member of a

class.

Since the above provides an obvoisly unambigious operator of which the
usage is totally clear to everybody - why doesn't standart C++ allow
it?

Anyway - thank you, I can deal with it with a wrapper class around it.

[Karl Heinz Buchegger]

Gernot Frisch wrote:

"Karl Heinz Buchegger" <kb******@gasca d.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:41******** *******@gascad. at...

Gernot Frisch wrote:

Hi,

I can define a class C that can handle a const char* and provide an operator:
C::operator string() const;

can I define such a cast operator for const char* instead of class

C??

If I understand you, you want something like this

operator const char*( string txt )
{
return txt.c_str();
}

The answer is: No. Conversion operators have to be a member of a

class.

Since the above provides an obvoisly unambigious operator of which the
usage is totally clear to everybody - why doesn't standart C++ allow
it?

Don't know.
You have to ask the guys down at comp.std.c++ why this is so.
There all the guys defining the standard hang around and discuss
what changes should be done to the language.

--
Karl Heinz Buchegger
kb******@gascad .at