The Weird and The Wonderful

BOOL b;
... use b ...
if(b == TRUE)

asrelu wrote:

"if(p)" is easier to write and also easier to understand instantly what it means.
I'm sure the generated code is the same because the code optimization will elliminate the pointless evaluation of the logical expression from "if(p == NULL)".

asrelu wrote:

And your point is that it's absurduous to check the validity of the pointer INSIDE the function. Because that function is a class member, you can call it only having a valid pointer to an instance of that class. If the pointer is invalid, the call will fail and the execution of the function will not even begin.

More specifically, a call like pObject->LogID() will fail with ASSERT if pObject is invalid. The call will execute the function only and only if pObject is valid. To check later, in the function, the validity of pObject (locally known as "this") makes no sense.

class A
{
public:
  void foo(){ printf("%p\n", this); }
};
int main()
{
  A * p;
  p = NULL;
  p->foo();
}

asrelu wrote:

Quote: "You're wrong (after all MFC developers are skilled people). Try the following code..."
You mix MFC with non-MFC, your sample has nothing to do with the MFC framework. I can only hope you'll not compile the release version without fixing an error signalled in the debug phase so I hope you'll not get a runtime error.

asrelu wrote:

Thank you for your remark that
"invalid pointers references cause runtime errors not assertions (ASSERT it's only a debug tool to intercept such occurrences)".

asrelu wrote:

In return, I want to offer you an advice having the same value:
If you want to fill a glass with water you shouldn't hold it upside down because the glass will not fill.

obj->Value()

if (obj != NULL) {
  value = obj->Value()
}
else {
  value = DefaultValue;
}

John R. Shaw wrote:

Now the fact that the method is not actually returning anything is much scarier.

Class* obj = 0;
obj->Method();

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:

Had the method been virtual, it would've crashed on the spot due to vtable lookups.

GuyThiebaut wrote:

itemDups += 0;

GuyThiebaut wrote:

goto Skip;

CDP1802 wrote:

Quick and dirty is not always a bad thing