struct my_struct *p = (struct my_struct *)malloc(sizeof (struct my_struct));

[Chris Fogelklou]

What is wrong with the above?

Don't worry, I already know (learned my lesson last week.) It is for the
benefit of our resident compiler guru who seems to think you need the cast.
I thought it too, up until I started posting here!

Thanks,

Chris

[Chris Torek]

In article <GS************ ********@newsc. telia.net>
Chris Fogelklou <ch************ *@comhem.se> writes:

Is there really that much wrong with making code compatible with both C and
C++? If we leave the cast in there, the code could be copied and pasted
into a C++ library verbatim. ...

There is nothing inherently wrong with it, but I see it as a waste of
effort in most cases.

There are quite a few subtle differences between C and C++, so that
one can write programs that are syntactically valid in both languages,
compile in both languages, yet mean something different in each
language. The problem is similar to getting Americans and Brits
to understand each other: when an American committee "tables" a
subject it is put aside to stop discussion, while the British
committee "tables" the subject to bring it up and begin discussion.

(I posted an example earlier today in which "sizeof type" changes
when the code is compiled in the alternate language. Look for
"struct scopetrick".)

More typically, good C code often fails to compile at all as C++
code (because -- among other things -- it omits casts that C++
requires); and of course good C++ code generally uses "new" instead
of malloc, or -- even better -- uses container classes.
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) [phone]
email: forget about it http://web.torek.net/torek/index.html
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.

[CBFalconer]

Chris Torek wrote:

Chris Fogelklou <ch************ *@comhem.se> writes:

Is there really that much wrong with making code compatible with
both C and C++? If we leave the cast in there, the code could
be copied and pasted into a C++ library verbatim. ...

There is nothing inherently wrong with it, but I see it as a
waste of effort in most cases.

There are quite a few subtle differences between C and C++, so
that one can write programs that are syntactically valid in both
languages, compile in both languages, yet mean something
different in each language. The problem is similar to getting
Americans and Brits to understand each other: when an American

....

Back when I was young and in my prime there was this amiable, but
poverty stricken Yank who met this foxy Brit chick. Nature took
its course, but then she told him: "I am getting divorced, with a
big settlement. Meet me after the divorce, but meanwhile I have
to stay pristine." And she handed him an envelope and told him to
open it after the day was over.

Well, he followed instructions, and opened it and read: "Until
7/6, noon, in Trafalger Square.". Since it was January, he went
off and did other things, such as roping calves etc., and returned
to London on 7/6. He never found her again.

She meant every word of it, and she was there on 7/6, but never
found him again.

Your mission, should you care to accept it, is to explain this
paradox. Alternate timelines or universes will not be accepted.

--
fix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2.
to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences
that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME
fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". - Hutchison

[Severian]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:29:22 GMT, CBFalconer <cb********@yah oo.com>
wrote:

Chris Torek wrote:

Chris Fogelklou <ch************ *@comhem.se> writes:

Is there really that much wrong with making code compatible with
both C and C++? If we leave the cast in there, the code could
be copied and pasted into a C++ library verbatim. ...

There is nothing inherently wrong with it, but I see it as a
waste of effort in most cases.

There are quite a few subtle differences between C and C++, so
that one can write programs that are syntactically valid in both
languages, compile in both languages, yet mean something
different in each language. The problem is similar to getting
Americans and Brits to understand each other: when an American

...

Back when I was young and in my prime there was this amiable, but
poverty stricken Yank who met this foxy Brit chick. Nature took
its course, but then she told him: "I am getting divorced, with a
big settlement. Meet me after the divorce, but meanwhile I have
to stay pristine." And she handed him an envelope and told him to
open it after the day was over.

Well, he followed instructions, and opened it and read: "Until
7/6, noon, in Trafalger Square.". Since it was January, he went
off and did other things, such as roping calves etc., and returned
to London on 7/6. He never found her again.

She meant every word of it, and she was there on 7/6, but never
found him again.

Your mission, should you care to accept it, is to explain this
paradox. Alternate timelines or universes will not be accepted.

Too easy. June 7th != July 6th. However, your language point is
evident.

--
Sev

[Christian Bau]

In article <9g************ *************** *****@4ax.com>,
Severian <se******@chlam ydia-is-not-a-flower.com> wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:29:22 GMT, CBFalconer <cb********@yah oo.com>
wrote:

Chris Torek wrote:

Chris Fogelklou <ch************ *@comhem.se> writes:

Is there really that much wrong with making code compatible with
both C and C++? If we leave the cast in there, the code could
be copied and pasted into a C++ library verbatim. ...

There is nothing inherently wrong with it, but I see it as a
waste of effort in most cases.

There are quite a few subtle differences between C and C++, so
that one can write programs that are syntactically valid in both
languages, compile in both languages, yet mean something
different in each language. The problem is similar to getting
Americans and Brits to understand each other: when an American

...

Back when I was young and in my prime there was this amiable, but
poverty stricken Yank who met this foxy Brit chick. Nature took
its course, but then she told him: "I am getting divorced, with a
big settlement. Meet me after the divorce, but meanwhile I have
to stay pristine." And she handed him an envelope and told him to
open it after the day was over.

Well, he followed instructions, and opened it and read: "Until
7/6, noon, in Trafalger Square.". Since it was January, he went
off and did other things, such as roping calves etc., and returned
to London on 7/6. He never found her again.

She meant every word of it, and she was there on 7/6, but never
found him again.

Your mission, should you care to accept it, is to explain this
paradox. Alternate timelines or universes will not be accepted.

Too easy. June 7th != July 6th. However, your language point is
evident.

Many years ago, a C++ framework that I investigated for its usefulness
changed a constructor from

Point::Point (int width, int height);

to

Point::Point (int vertical, int horizontal);

I decided not to use that framework...