Christopher Smith wrote:
Chuck Esterbrook wrote:
On 6/11/07, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
template <typename T>
class Ptr {
public:
Ptr(T* a) : ptr(a) {}
Ptr(Ptr<T>& a) : ptr(a.ptr) {}
T& operator*() const { return *operator->(); }
T* operator->() const { if (nullptr == a) { throw
null_pointer_exception(); } return a; }
bool operator==(const Ptr<T>& a) const { return ptr == a.ptr; }
Ptr<T>& operator=(const Ptr<T>& a) { ptr = a.ptr; }
private:
T* ptr;
};
Now you can avoid that error in C++ (not to mention abusing pointer
arithmetic). You're welcome.
DO *NOT* USE THIS CODE!
Go find a library at boost:
http://www.boost.org
WHY???? Why would I prefer that over Java, C# or Python where these
semantics are built in and I'll never forget to type "Ptr(...)"?
If you don't appreciate the advantages over Java and C#, I can't explain
them to you.
You just demonstrated why I now *despise* programming in C++. It isn't
just the language; it's the programmers.
Rather than pointing someone to a well-debugged, peer-reviewed,
unit-tested smart pointer library (or similar), you knocked something
out that has an unclear amount of exception safety. It also probably
has quite a few subtle failure modes in multithreaded code because you
replaced pointer operations (many of which have atomicity guarantees)
with multistep operations.
Worse, in order to figure out even *if* that code has exception
problems, I would have to go pick up my copy of "Exceptional C++", read
it cover to cover *again*, and stare at that code for quite a while.
Thank you for demonstrating the cognitive load suckage of C++ in
concrete form.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
