[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: none
From: |
David Philippi |
Subject: |
Re: none |
Date: |
Fri, 7 Jun 2002 20:19:26 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.4.1 |
On Friday 07 June 2002 19:55, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> The dummy_ptr<> did IIRC also init the value with zero, instead of
> some undefined random value, but your are right, the loss of using
> dummy_ptr might be bigger than the gain. Can remember if I ever
> catched a bug with them.
A pointer should alway be initialized in place or in the constructor.
Everything else is an invitation to very ugly errors. :-)
They won't really help you anyway - if they encounter a 0 pointer they just
called "assert(0);" this would lead to a call to abort() and since the line
number is in the dummy_ptr code you have to open the core. ;-)
[terrible code]
> I guess I know why some people say C++ is ugly...
I guess I know why some people get beaten for the code they write. ;-)
It's not a problem of C++, you may write unreadable code in every language if
you want. The only real problem of C++ is, that it is hard to learn it since
there's quite a lot to learn.
> Yep, most or all of them could be replaced by normal pointers if the
> structure how and where the 'new' takes place is changed.
Well, this is something a bit too internal for me yet. If I tried to work on
this right now it would probably produce a lot of errors. But I'm still
working on include reduction anyway - big cvs commit coming very soon. I
didn't do any benchmarks, but I'd say that the compilation and especially
the linking are much faster now in my tree.
Bye David
- Re: none, Ingo Ruhnke, 2002/06/07
- Re: none, David Philippi, 2002/06/07
- Re: none, Ingo Ruhnke, 2002/06/07
- Re: none,
David Philippi <=
- Re: none, Ingo Ruhnke, 2002/06/07
- Re: none, David Philippi, 2002/06/07