Hi guys,
Just another question. Suppose I have 2 classes (incomplete code):
class A {
A(const B& b);
A& operator = (const A& a);
};
class B {
B(const A& a);
friend B operator + (const B& b1, const B& b2);
};
If I have code like:
{
A x, y, z;
x = y + z;
}
There is no + operator for A. Is it possible that the ctor of B makes
temporary objects of 'y' and 'z', then the + operator of B is called to
add x and y, and the result is converted back to class A with its ctor
and then assigned to x? Or am I talking complete nonsense here?
Thanx for any pointers,
Jeroen 10 1443
On Feb 28, 4:50 pm, Jeroen <no_m...@thanx.comwrote:
Hi guys,
Just another question. Suppose I have 2 classes (incomplete code):
class A {
A(const B& b);
A& operator = (const A& a);
};
class B {
B(const A& a);
friend B operator + (const B& b1, const B& b2);
};
If I have code like:
{
A x, y, z;
x = y + z;
}
There is no + operator for A. Is it possible that the ctor of B makes
temporary objects of 'y' and 'z', then the + operator of B is called to
add x and y, and the result is converted back to class A with its ctor
and then assigned to x? Or am I talking complete nonsense here?
Thanx for any pointers,
Jeroen
The compiler can not deduce how it should add z and y ;there maybe
other classes similar to B too.I suggest either of the following
lines:
x=B(y)+z;
x=y+B(z);
in either of these cases in contrast to wht you did the compiler is
able to pick 'B operator+(const B&,const B&)'.
terminator schreef:
On Feb 28, 4:50 pm, Jeroen <no_m...@thanx.comwrote:
>Hi guys,
Just another question. Suppose I have 2 classes (incomplete code):
class A { A(const B& b); A& operator = (const A& a);
};
class B { B(const A& a); friend B operator + (const B& b1, const B& b2);
};
If I have code like:
{ A x, y, z;
x = y + z;
}
There is no + operator for A. Is it possible that the ctor of B makes temporary objects of 'y' and 'z', then the + operator of B is called to add x and y, and the result is converted back to class A with its ctor and then assigned to x? Or am I talking complete nonsense here?
Thanx for any pointers,
Jeroen
The compiler can not deduce how it should add z and y ;there maybe
other classes similar to B too.I suggest either of the following
lines:
x=B(y)+z;
x=y+B(z);
in either of these cases in contrast to wht you did the compiler is
able to pick 'B operator+(const B&,const B&)'.
OK, so at least one variable should match the available arithmetic
operator to ensure that it works. Thanks!
"Jeroen" <no*****@thanx.comwrote in message news:45e58df7@cs1...
terminator schreef:
>On Feb 28, 4:50 pm, Jeroen <no_m...@thanx.comwrote:
>>Hi guys,
Just another question. Suppose I have 2 classes (incomplete code):
class A { A(const B& b); A& operator = (const A& a);
};
class B { B(const A& a); friend B operator + (const B& b1, const B& b2);
};
If I have code like:
{ A x, y, z;
x = y + z;
}
There is no + operator for A. Is it possible that the ctor of B makes temporary objects of 'y' and 'z', then the + operator of B is called to add x and y, and the result is converted back to class A with its ctor and then assigned to x? Or am I talking complete nonsense here?
Thanx for any pointers,
Jeroen
The compiler can not deduce how it should add z and y ;there maybe other classes similar to B too.I suggest either of the following lines:
x=B(y)+z; x=y+B(z);
in either of these cases in contrast to wht you did the compiler is able to pick 'B operator+(const B&,const B&)'.
OK, so at least one variable should match the available arithmetic
operator to ensure that it works. Thanks!
But the question that you should rather ask yourself is should I really do
this? You're walking towards implicit conversion, which is a dangerous
thing, and also towards a rather questionable design. If A and B are not
related, which is what is indicated by your design, then why would you want
to convert A to B and probably back. It's even more questionable why you
want the compiler to do this silently. If A & B are not related then they
also should not share implementations, like the + op for example. I'd
strongly suggest that you reconsider your design because IMHO this looks
very much like the beginning of a serious design flaw, which could provide
you the arguable pleasure of endless debugging hours.
Cheers
Chris
Chris Theis wrote:
"Jeroen" <no*****@thanx.comwrote in message news:45e58df7@cs1...
>terminator schreef:
>>On Feb 28, 4:50 pm, Jeroen <no_m...@thanx.comwrote: Hi guys,
Just another question. Suppose I have 2 classes (incomplete code):
class A { A(const B& b); A& operator = (const A& a);
};
class B { B(const A& a); friend B operator + (const B& b1, const B& b2);
};
If I have code like:
{ A x, y, z;
x = y + z;
}
There is no + operator for A. Is it possible that the ctor of B makes temporary objects of 'y' and 'z', then the + operator of B is called to add x and y, and the result is converted back to class A with its ctor and then assigned to x? Or am I talking complete nonsense here?
Thanx for any pointers,
Jeroen The compiler can not deduce how it should add z and y ;there maybe other classes similar to B too.I suggest either of the following lines:
x=B(y)+z; x=y+B(z);
in either of these cases in contrast to wht you did the compiler is able to pick 'B operator+(const B&,const B&)'.
OK, so at least one variable should match the available arithmetic operator to ensure that it works. Thanks!
But the question that you should rather ask yourself is should I really do
this? You're walking towards implicit conversion, which is a dangerous
thing,
Implicit conversion isn't inherently dangerous. It occurs, for example,
whenever you pass an object of a derived type to a function that takes a
reference to one of its base types. And implicit conversions among value
types isn't necessarily dangerous, either.
The real issue here is the interconvertibility of the two types, which
often leads to mysterious-looking ambiguities.
and also towards a rather questionable design. If A and B are not
related, which is what is indicated by your design,
Seems to me that the sketch we've seen indicates that A and B are
closely related.
--
-- Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. ( www.versatilecoding.com)
Author of "The Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and
Reference." ( www.petebecker.com/tr1book)
Pete Becker schreef:
Chris Theis wrote:
>"Jeroen" <no*****@thanx.comwrote in message news:45e58df7@cs1...
>>terminator schreef: On Feb 28, 4:50 pm, Jeroen <no_m...@thanx.comwrote: Hi guys, > Just another question. Suppose I have 2 classes (incomplete code): > class A { A(const B& b); A& operator = (const A& a); > }; > class B { B(const A& a); friend B operator + (const B& b1, const B& b2); > }; > If I have code like: > { A x, y, z; > x = y + z; > } > There is no + operator for A. Is it possible that the ctor of B makes temporary objects of 'y' and 'z', then the + operator of B is called to add x and y, and the result is converted back to class A with its ctor and then assigned to x? Or am I talking complete nonsense here? > Thanx for any pointers, > Jeroen The compiler can not deduce how it should add z and y ;there maybe other classes similar to B too.I suggest either of the following lines:
x=B(y)+z; x=y+B(z);
in either of these cases in contrast to wht you did the compiler is able to pick 'B operator+(const B&,const B&)'.
OK, so at least one variable should match the available arithmetic operator to ensure that it works. Thanks!
But the question that you should rather ask yourself is should I really do this? You're walking towards implicit conversion, which is a dangerous thing,
Implicit conversion isn't inherently dangerous. It occurs, for example,
whenever you pass an object of a derived type to a function that takes a
reference to one of its base types. And implicit conversions among value
types isn't necessarily dangerous, either.
The real issue here is the interconvertibility of the two types, which
often leads to mysterious-looking ambiguities.
>and also towards a rather questionable design. If A and B are not related, which is what is indicated by your design,
Seems to me that the sketch we've seen indicates that A and B are
closely related.
Indeed they are closely related. B contains a pointer to an 'A' object,
and some additional information. I'm playing around with possible
implementations which may solve several problems of my project. I'm not
yet up to actually implement things. I'll start with that once I know
that I have an elegant architecture which will work without problems.
See my respond in the previous thread 'Question about evaluation order'
for some info of what I'm doing.
Thanx,
Jeroen
On Feb 28, 5:02 pm, "terminator" <farid.mehr...@gmail.comwrote:
On Feb 28, 4:50 pm, Jeroen <no_m...@thanx.comwrote:
Hi guys,
Just another question. Suppose I have 2 classes (incomplete code):
class A {
A(const B& b);
A& operator = (const A& a);
};
class B {
B(const A& a);
friend B operator + (const B& b1, const B& b2);
};
If I have code like:
{
A x, y, z;
x = y + z;
}
There is no + operator for A. Is it possible that the ctor of B makes
temporary objects of 'y' and 'z', then the + operator of B is called to
add x and y, and the result is converted back to class A with its ctor
and then assigned to x? Or am I talking complete nonsense here?
Thanx for any pointers,
Jeroen
The compiler can not deduce how it should add z and y ;there maybe
other classes similar to B too.I suggest either of the following
lines:
x=B(y)+z;
x=y+B(z);
in either of these cases in contrast to wht you did the compiler is
able to pick 'B operator+(const B&,const B&)'.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Your code works unless another class that similar to B defines a
global binary operator+ and a constructor from an A is introduced.
On Feb 28, 8:25 pm, "terminator" <farid.mehr...@gmail.comwrote:
On Feb 28, 5:02 pm, "terminator" <farid.mehr...@gmail.comwrote:
On Feb 28, 4:50 pm, Jeroen <no_m...@thanx.comwrote:
Hi guys,
Just another question. Suppose I have 2 classes (incomplete code):
class A {
A(const B& b);
A& operator = (const A& a);
};
class B {
B(const A& a);
friend B operator + (const B& b1, const B& b2);
};
If I have code like:
{
A x, y, z;
x = y + z;
}
There is no + operator for A. Is it possible that the ctor of B makes
temporary objects of 'y' and 'z', then the + operator of B is called to
add x and y, and the result is converted back to class A with its ctor
and then assigned to x? Or am I talking complete nonsense here?
Thanx for any pointers,
Jeroen
The compiler can not deduce how it should add z and y ;there maybe
other classes similar to B too.I suggest either of the following
lines:
x=B(y)+z;
x=y+B(z);
in either of these cases in contrast to wht you did the compiler is
able to pick 'B operator+(const B&,const B&)'.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Your code works unless another class that similar to B defines a
global binary operator+ and a constructor from an A is introduced.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
class B;
class A{
public:
A(){cout<<"A()\n";};
A(const B&){cout<<"A(B)\n";};
};
class B{
public:
B(){cout<<"B()\n";};
B(const A&){cout<<"B(A)\n";};
friend B operator+(const B&,const B&);
};
B operator+(const B&,const B&){cout<<"B+B\n";return B();};
//if you uncomment the following ,ambiguity error occurs.
/*class C{
public:
C(){cout<<"C()\n";};
C(const A&){cout<<"C(A)\n";};
friend C operator+(const C&,const C&);
};
C operator+(const C&,const C&){cout<<"C+C\n";return C();};*/
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
A x,y,z;
x=y+z;//ok:x=A(B(y)+B(z));
return 0;
}
"Pete Becker" <pe**@versatilecoding.comwrote in message
news:g-******************************@giganews.com...
Implicit conversion isn't inherently dangerous. It occurs, for example,
whenever you pass an object of a derived type to a function that takes a
reference to one of its base types. And implicit conversions among value
types isn't necessarily dangerous, either.
I absolutely agree that it's not inherently or necessarily dangerous. But
IMO one should be careful as it might open pitfalls that are very often not
obvious and hard to spot. Still, it certainly has its place and uses. There
is no doubt about that.
Cheers
Chris
terminator schreef:
On Feb 28, 8:25 pm, "terminator" <farid.mehr...@gmail.comwrote:
>On Feb 28, 5:02 pm, "terminator" <farid.mehr...@gmail.comwrote:
>>On Feb 28, 4:50 pm, Jeroen <no_m...@thanx.comwrote: Hi guys, Just another question. Suppose I have 2 classes (incomplete code): class A { A(const B& b); A& operator = (const A& a); }; class B { B(const A& a); friend B operator + (const B& b1, const B& b2); }; If I have code like: { A x, y, z; x = y + z; } There is no + operator for A. Is it possible that the ctor of B makes temporary objects of 'y' and 'z', then the + operator of B is called to add x and y, and the result is converted back to class A with its ctor and then assigned to x? Or am I talking complete nonsense here? Thanx for any pointers, Jeroen The compiler can not deduce how it should add z and y ;there maybe other classes similar to B too.I suggest either of the following lines: x=B(y)+z; x=y+B(z); in either of these cases in contrast to wht you did the compiler is able to pick 'B operator+(const B&,const B&)'.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -
Your code works unless another class that similar to B defines a global binary operator+ and a constructor from an A is introduced.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
class B;
class A{
public:
A(){cout<<"A()\n";};
A(const B&){cout<<"A(B)\n";};
};
class B{
public:
B(){cout<<"B()\n";};
B(const A&){cout<<"B(A)\n";};
friend B operator+(const B&,const B&);
};
B operator+(const B&,const B&){cout<<"B+B\n";return B();};
//if you uncomment the following ,ambiguity error occurs.
/*class C{
public:
C(){cout<<"C()\n";};
C(const A&){cout<<"C(A)\n";};
friend C operator+(const C&,const C&);
};
C operator+(const C&,const C&){cout<<"C+C\n";return C();};*/
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
A x,y,z;
x=y+z;//ok:x=A(B(y)+B(z));
return 0;
}
OK, thanks for the example. If I get this right, then C++ will try to do
any conversion in order to find a corresponding match with the required
operator, but it is a dangerous technique... I will avoid it :-)
Jeroen
On Mar 1, 12:03 pm, Jeroen <no_m...@thanx.comwrote:
terminator schreef:
On Feb 28, 8:25 pm, "terminator" <farid.mehr...@gmail.comwrote:
On Feb 28, 5:02 pm, "terminator" <farid.mehr...@gmail.comwrote:
>On Feb 28, 4:50 pm, Jeroen <no_m...@thanx.comwrote: Hi guys, Just another question. Suppose I have 2 classes (incomplete code): class A { A(const B& b); A& operator = (const A& a); }; class B { B(const A& a); friend B operator + (const B& b1, const B& b2); }; If I have code like: { A x, y, z; x = y + z; } There is no + operator for A. Is it possible that the ctor of B makes temporary objects of 'y' and 'z', then the + operator of B is called to add x and y, and the result is converted back to class A with its ctor and then assigned to x? Or am I talking complete nonsense here? Thanx for any pointers, Jeroen The compiler can not deduce how it should add z and y ;there maybe other classes similar to B too.I suggest either of the following lines: x=B(y)+z; x=y+B(z); in either of these cases in contrast to wht you did the compiler is able to pick 'B operator+(const B&,const B&)'.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -
Your code works unless another class that similar to B defines a
global binary operator+ and a constructor from an A is introduced.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
class B;
class A{
public:
A(){cout<<"A()\n";};
A(const B&){cout<<"A(B)\n";};
};
class B{
public:
B(){cout<<"B()\n";};
B(const A&){cout<<"B(A)\n";};
friend B operator+(const B&,const B&);
};
B operator+(const B&,const B&){cout<<"B+B\n";return B();};
//if you uncomment the following ,ambiguity error occurs.
/*class C{
public:
C(){cout<<"C()\n";};
C(const A&){cout<<"C(A)\n";};
friend C operator+(const C&,const C&);
};
C operator+(const C&,const C&){cout<<"C+C\n";return C();};*/
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
A x,y,z;
x=y+z;//ok:x=A(B(y)+B(z));
return 0;
}
OK, thanks for the example. If I get this right, then C++ will try to do
any conversion in order to find a corresponding match with the required
operator, but it is a dangerous technique... I will avoid it :-)
Jeroen- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
if you define 'B' like this:
class B{
public:
B();
B(const A&);
B operator+(const B&); //binary operator as member function
};
then you have to write the code this way:
{
A x,y,z;
x=B(x)+z;//OK:x=A(B(x).B::operator+(B(z)));
x=y+z;//ERROR:no + for A.
}; This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Dmitry D |
last post by:
Hi,
I'm new to C++ (started learning in the beginning of this summer), and I
have the following question (sorry if it sounds stupid):
In many code samples and source files, I see NULL expression...
|
by: TTroy |
last post by:
Hello, I'm relatively new to C and have gone through more than 4 books
on it. None mentioned anything about integral promotion, arithmetic
conversion, value preserving and unsigned preserving. ...
|
by: Randy Yates |
last post by:
Consider the following code:
#include "dsptypes.h"
/* definitions */
#define VECTOR_LENGTH 64
/* local variables */
|
by: junky_fellow |
last post by:
char *str1 = "Hello";
char arr1 = { "Hello" };
char arr2 = { 'H', 'e', 'l', 'l', 'o' };
Is it legal to modify str1, arr1 and arr2 ?
|
by: Wonder |
last post by:
Hello,
I'm confused by the pointer definition such as int *(p);
It seems if the parenthesis close p, it defines only 3 integers. The
star
is just useless. It can be showed by my program:
...
|
by: Steven Watanabe |
last post by:
I know that the standard idioms for clearing a list are:
(1) mylist =
(2) del mylist
I guess I'm not in the "slicing frame of mind", as someone put it, but
can someone explain what the...
|
by: Richard G. Riley |
last post by:
Would it be wrong to use "implicit casting" instead of the standards
"implicit conversion" when talking about implicit conversions between
certain data types. The standard mentions "explicit...
|
by: Why Tea |
last post by:
What happens to the pointer below?
SomeStruct *p;
p = malloc(100*sizeof(SomeStruct)); /* without a cast */
return((void *)(p+1)); /* will the returned pointer point
to the 2nd...
|
by: =?Utf-8?B?TGFkaXNsYXYgTXJua2E=?= |
last post by:
Hello,
I have created my own simple ASP.NET expression. It looks like <%$
InstanceSettings:Name %>. It access NameValueCollection and returns string
value. At the moment I need to convert this...
|
by: taylorcarr |
last post by:
A Canon printer is a smart device known for being advanced, efficient, and reliable. It is designed for home, office, and hybrid workspace use and can also be used for a variety of purposes. However,...
|
by: aa123db |
last post by:
Variable and constants
Use var or let for variables and const fror constants.
Var foo ='bar';
Let foo ='bar';const baz ='bar';
Functions
function $name$ ($parameters$) {
}
...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
| |