C / C++ / MFC

Iain Clarke wrote:

Does that help halfway?

Iain Clarke wrote:

I hope the light at the end of the tunnel isn't a train.

Greetings.
--------
M.D.V.

If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
“The First Rule of Program Optimization: Don't do it. The Second Rule of Program Optimization (for experts only!): Don't do it yet.” - Michael A. Jackson

class A
{
   ...
};

class B
{
public:
    // I think you'd get complained at if both of these were used
    B ( A &a );   // would pop up the error if it was enabled.
    B ( const A &a); // would not pop up the error
    ....
};

void MyFunction (CBigClass &big)
{
    COtherClass other;

    other = big;

    other.DoStuff ();
}

CBigClass b;
b.Blah ();

MyFunction (b); // I've looked through this - I can't see anything bad there!
                // This function just takes a copy of big, and then works on the
                // copy. What could possibly go wrong?

class COtherClass
{
   ....
   COtherClass &operator=(CBigClass &b);
   ....
};

COtherClass &COtherClass::operator=(CBigClass b)
{
   ....
   b.DoSomethingNotConst ();
   ....
   return *this;
}

Iain Clarke wrote:

Suddenly, you have a bug that doesn't manifest until much later, and would be really hard to track down.

Class C a,b;

b.FillWithValues ();

a = b;