Your C++ Homework

[Fred Astair]

I used this site for a c++ homework assignment that my teacher left me no
clue on how to do it. http://www.betterteachers.com. Check it out.

Fred

[Jonathan Turkanis]

"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL > wrote:

Jonathan Turkanis posted:

"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL > wrote :

Since when does one need a teacher to learn C++?!

I'm living proof of the contrary.
I wouldn't stress that one example too much.

Any particular reason why?

I was trying to express what I thought was a pretty obvious point without being
overtly rude. As is so often the case, I probably should have kept my mouth
shut.
-JKop

Jonathan

[Mike Wahler]

"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL > wrote in message
news:dz******** ***********@new s.indigo.ie...

Given that you recently threw one on line fit because you couldn't add
an integer to a string and another because you couldn't return a stream
by value, I would say this proof is a little leaky.

Actually, don't you think that destroys your own argument? You've just
expressed that at one time I didn't know how to append a number in digit
form to a string, and that I didn't know why a stream could not be copied.
Evidently, I posted enquiring about these, and now I know how. Emphasis on
"now I know". Quit living in the past.
-JKop

On 10/23/2004
"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL > wrote in message
news:D8******** ***********@new s.indigo.ie...
Hello!

I'm an expert C++ programmer.

-Mike

[Raymond Martineau]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:40:03 +0300, "Catalin Pitis"
<ca***********@ iquestint.com.r enameme> wrote:

"Gernot Frisch" <[e-mail] > wrote in message
news:2u******* ******@uni-berlin.de...

"Catalin Pitis" <ca***********@ iquestint.com.r enameme> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:2u******** *****@uni-berlin.de...

"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL > wrote in message
news:LR******** ***********@new s.indigo.ie...
Definitely agree with you there! While having a teacher (for anything in
life really) will make you learn faster, still there's no need for the
teacher. I've yet to find a book which has a good explanation on why:
int *p_k;

*p_k = 4;
is illegal.

When you find it, tell me :). I'm curious.

Don't understand: Is there no book that tells you that it's illegal? I'm
gonna write one. Title:
"Dereferenc ing an uninitialized pointer is illegal".

Content:
Dereferencing an uninitialized pointer is illegal. Example:
int* p_k; *p_k=4; [1]

References:
[1] JKob in comp.lang.c++, 27.10.2004

Am I gonna be rich?
-Gernot

It should be a missundertandin g :). By illegal I meant that the compiler
doesn't allow me to do it. But I'm allowed to do it. I surely wouldn't do it
:).

The compiler generally issues a warning in that case. It doesn't block you
from doing it (since the standard merely says it's undefined rather than an
error), but alerts you in case you forgot to do somethine first.

The piece of code is only stated to be undefined under general standards. A
compiler doesn't complain because there is a chance that the variable may
be initialized somehow (but I doubt it). As a result, the only problems
you encounter will be at run-time (or in the case of old dos programs, a
"null pointer assignment" message on shutdown.)

[Ioannis Vranos]

Raymond Martineau wrote:

The compiler generally issues a warning in that case. It doesn't block you
from doing it (since the standard merely says it's undefined rather than an
error), but alerts you in case you forgot to do somethine first.

The piece of code is only stated to be undefined under general standards. A
compiler doesn't complain because there is a chance that the variable may
be initialized somehow (but I doubt it). As a result, the only problems
you encounter will be at run-time (or in the case of old dos programs, a
"null pointer assignment" message on shutdown.)

Assignment of an integer to a pointer type is not allowed, unless some
"dirty" casting is used.

--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[JKop]

Jonathan Turkanis posted:

"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL > wrote:

Jonathan Turkanis posted:

> "JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL > wrote : >> Since when does one need a teacher to learn C++?!
>>
>> I'm living proof of the contrary.
>
> I wouldn't stress that one example too much.

Any particular reason why?

I was trying to express what I thought was a pretty obvious point
without being overtly rude. As is so often the case, I probably should
have kept my mouth shut.

-JKop

Jonathan

Curious, that's all.
-JKop

[JKop]

Mike Wahler posted:

"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL > wrote in message
news:dz******** ***********@new s.indigo.ie...

> Given that you recently threw one on line fit because you couldn't
> add an integer to a string and another because you couldn't return a
> stream by value, I would say this proof is a little leaky.

Actually, don't you think that destroys your own argument? You've just
expressed that at one time I didn't know how to append a number in
digit form to a string, and that I didn't know why a stream could not
be copied. Evidently, I posted enquiring about these, and now I know
how. Emphasis on "now I know". Quit living in the past.
-JKop

On 10/23/2004
"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL > wrote in message
news:D8******** ***********@new s.indigo.ie...

Hello!

I'm an expert C++ programmer.

-Mike

I presume that was to a Win32 newsgroup, no?

The term "expert" is relative. Outside of this newsgroup, I would definitely
say that I'm an expert C++ programmer, but if I were to say that right here
then it wouldn't have much weight as there's people here with superior
knowledge of C++ than me (in particular, of the Standard Library... it
really is about time I got a book on it!).
If we throw the Standard Library out of the window for the moment, then I
would be comfortable saying here that I'm an expert C++ programmer - I
pretty much understand and know how to use all of the features of C++.
Anyway Mike, thanks for clarifying whatever the hell you were trying to
clarify.
-JKop

[JKop]

Ioannis Vranos posted:

Raymond Martineau wrote:

The compiler generally issues a warning in that case. It doesn't
block you from doing it (since the standard merely says it's undefined rather than an error), but alerts you in case you forgot to do
somethine first.

The piece of code is only stated to be undefined under general
standards. A compiler doesn't complain because there is a chance that
the variable may be initialized somehow (but I doubt it). As a
result, the only problems you encounter will be at run-time (or in the case of old dos programs, a "null pointer assignment" message on
shutdown.)

Assignment of an integer to a pointer type is not allowed, unless some
"dirty" casting is used.

void* const address = reinterpret_cas t<void* const>(666);
Not ttoooo dirty.
-JKop

[JKop]

I actualy bought one and found that it had a number of really
quite trivial mistakes ¬_¬.

Money to burn...
-JKop

[Joe Van Dyk]

On 2004-10-27 02:17:09 -0700, "Gernot Frisch" <[e-mail] > said:

"Catalin Pitis" <ca***********@ iquestint.com.r enameme> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:2u******** *****@uni-berlin.de...

"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL > wrote in message
news:LR******** ***********@new s.indigo.ie...

Depends on the teacher. With a good teacher(s), you may learn faster
and spend less time for digging in books, manuals and other materials.
I missed that a lot. But I took care to guide other's study in the
companies that I worked.
Definitely agree with you there! While having a teacher (for anything in
life really) will make you learn faster, still there's no need for the
teacher. I've yet to find a book which has a good explanation on why:
int *p_k;

*p_k = 4;
is illegal.

When you find it, tell me :). I'm curious.

Don't understand: Is there no book that tells you that it's illegal?
I'm gonna write one. Title:
"Dereferenc ing an uninitialized pointer is illegal".

Content:
Dereferencing an uninitialized pointer is illegal. Example:
int* p_k; *p_k=4; [1]

References:
[1] JKob in comp.lang.c++, 27.10.2004

Am I gonna be rich?
-Gernot

So, if I have a pointer to an int that's unitialized, how do I tell it
to point at a given int?

[JKop]

Joe Van Dyk posted:

On 2004-10-27 02:17:09 -0700, "Gernot Frisch" <[e-mail] > said:

"Catalin Pitis" <ca***********@ iquestint.com.r enameme> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:2u******** *****@uni-berlin.de...

"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL > wrote in message
news:LR******** ***********@new s.indigo.ie...

> Depends on the teacher. With a good teacher(s), you may learn
> faster and spend less time for digging in books, manuals and other
> materials. I missed that a lot. But I took care to guide other's
> study in the companies that I worked.
Definitely agree with you there! While having a teacher (for
anything in life really) will make you learn faster, still there's
no need for the teacher. I've yet to find a book which has a good
explanation on why:
int *p_k;

*p_k = 4;
is illegal.

When you find it, tell me :). I'm curious.

Don't understand: Is there no book that tells you that it's illegal?
I'm gonna write one. Title:
"Dereferenc ing an uninitialized pointer is illegal".

Content:
Dereferencing an uninitialized pointer is illegal. Example:
int* p_k; *p_k=4; [1]

References:
[1] JKob in comp.lang.c++, 27.10.2004

Am I gonna be rich?
-Gernot

So, if I have a pointer to an int that's unitialized, how do I tell it
to point at a given int?

int* p_k;

int a = 1;
int b = 2;
int c = 3;
int d = 4;

p_k = &a;

*p_k = 4;

p_k = &b;

*p_k = 3;

p_k = &c;

*p_k = 2;

p_k = &d;

*p_k = 1;
-JKop