On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 10:12:46PM -0400, Andy Pintar wrote: > I just destroyed the email I sas crafting and so this one will be a > little more to-the-point. > I mentioned before, Bruce Eckel's book is a great (free) place to > start C++. It will answer all the questions below. > http://www.linuxguruz.org/ebooks/eckel/TICPP-2nd-ed-Vol-one.zip > http://www.linuxguruz.org/ebooks/eckel/TICPP-2nd-ed-Vol-two.zip > > > On Sat, 11 Aug 2012, Leslie S Satenstein wrote: > >If you use the G++ compiler, you can program with C++ and avoid classes, > >have efficient code and except for the canned classes (namespace std) and > >some others, gain as much performance as if coding in C. > Well, if you don't include it you won't include it. Just like in C > you can use math, stdlib, string, etc. But if you don't include > them they won't be in your code. > > >structures, unions, still work in C++. > Structs are classes in C++. So, a class with no methods is a struct > with default private member variables. Which seems kind of > useless... class myClasss { public: int a; int b; }; is equivalent > to struct myStruct { int a; int b; }; > > >I am not a strong C++ programmer, but if I declare a class, can I declare a > >pointer of that class type and assign it to NULL or to any other object of > >the same class? > Yes. myClass* myclassptr = new myClass( blah1 ); > delete myclassptr; > myclassptr = null; > myclassptr = new myClass( blah2 );A > > >Can I do a memset(class_pointer, 0, sizeof(class)); To wipe out a class > >with mixed binary and asciiz string variables, some of which are public and > >some protected? > Yes, you can. private member variables just means that regular > access is restricted. But when you go memsetting you go around the > protections c++ gives you. > There was this whole argument about how > c was somehow 'unsafe,' which is totally ridiculous if you ask me (I > know you didn't, but there it is). Programming is not safe. In > fact, if you could design a safe language where you couldn't shoot > yourself in the foot, I bet it'd be useless.
You don't need a language that's absolutely safe, but one in which you can't shot yourself in the foot by accident. Doing it deliberately is another matter entirely. > Programming isn't > easy. No, it isn't. Which is why I like to use powerful and efficient tools. They make it possible to attack more difficult problems. > Yes, memsetting a class to zero is really really stupid. But > maybe just maybe there's a legitimate reason for doing so in this > case. The other 99.999999% of the time, just delete myclassptr; Or > better yet, use smart pointers (see "shared_ptr"). I have included > a sample test program and the output at the bottom of this email. -- hendrik _______________________________________________ mlug mailing list [email protected] https://listes.koumbit.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-listserv.mlug.ca
