|
Thanks Steve,
The output from Visual Studio 2008 is,
int
float
double
i=0, f=0, d=0
I am confused if T is int, what is T()?
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
George_George wrote: I am confused if T is int, what is T()?
0. It makes generic programming simpler to allow default constructors on base types.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Steve,
Cool!
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
class ABC
{
public:
void MyFunc() { cout<<"hello atl";}
};
void main()
{
ABC *c= NULL;
c->MyFunc();
}
|
|
|
|
|
hello atl.
It won't crash as you expect.
Similar thread crash[^]
modified on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:00 AM
|
|
|
|
|
it's not a static function, nor a singleton.
it's just gonna crash because he deferences a NULL pointer...
|
|
|
|
|
Hi toxcct,
please check executing it. Are you getting exception?
And in the link provided in my orginal reply i explained my understanding.
toxcct wrote: it's not a static function, nor a singleton.
AFAIK, most singleton implementation tries to keep the object instance as one for process, but other than that, it is same as normal class instance. It should crash, if its corresponding normal instance crashes.
modified on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 10:06 AM
|
|
|
|
|
You need a compiler, my friend. Otherwise your teorethic point of view will sometimes clash with real world behaviours. 
Of course, OP code was more than weird.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
probably something like :
"Segmentation Fault" or any other messages that pops up when you access an unallocated pointer or null pointer.
|
|
|
|
|
"You better pass to managed code."
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
Why not try it and find out?
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
|
|
|
|
|
This is also funny !
class ABC
{
int m_i;
public:
void MyFunc() { _tprintf(_T("ABC %d", &m_i));}
void MyFunc2() { m_i = 3;}
};
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
ABC* c= NULL;
c->MyFunc(); // OK!
c->MyFunc2(); // ACCESS VIOLATION
return 0;
}
|
|
|
|
|
Really cannot you figure out that? See http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/View.aspx?fid=1647&msg=2456326[^].
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but both methods use data member ...
|
|
|
|
|
Dieghito wrote: Yes, but both methods use data member ...
No.
MyFunc only takes the address of something which doesn't exist, which is also NULL (I guess, no compiler at home now). You can print any addresses including NULL.
If you change it as _tprintf(_T("ABC %d"), m_i), it will crash.
Maxwell Chen
|
|
|
|
|
relate
[^]
and
[^]
&m_i = &* (this + offset of m_i) which is (this + offset of m_i) its not dereferencing and your printf format specifier is %d (0(this) + 0(offset of m_i)) is quite enough to work printf.
It is not accessing the value.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, while the second really uses the data member, the first one use only the supposed address of the data member itself. Try a debugger session on the following code
class ABC
{
public:
int m_i;
int m_i2;
void MyFunc() { cout<<"hello atl";}
};
void main()
{
ABC *c= NULL;
int * p = &(c->m_i);
int * p2 = &(c->m_i2);
}
BTW I agree, we're on the funny (or weird, depending on taste) side of the things.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: BTW I agree, we're on the funny (or weird, depending on taste) side of the things.
Eight years ago, I wrote my ADO wrapper library at work. The whole thing was written in this taste.
ADOxxxClass* p = NULL;
p->SomeFunction(...);
Maxwell Chen
|
|
|
|
|
Maxwell Chen wrote: Eight years ago
wow, you are too experienced buddy.
|
|
|
|
|
Rajkumar R wrote: wow, you are too experienced buddy.
Maxwell Chen
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, buddy!
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
Hello everyone,
I can not find precise definition for typed argument for template and non-typed argument for template.
My understanding is,
code like
template <class T, int size> class Foo {
}
T is typed template argument, and size is non-typed template argument. My understanding correct?
thanks in advance,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Rajkumar,
Question answered.
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
