hi,i got the following code.it compiles welll.but when running,it gives a"debug assertion failed" error.
Code:#include <iostream> class test{ public: char *fileName; test(char *r){ fileName=r; } ~test(){ delete(fileName); } }; using namespace std; void main(void){ test r("xyz"); system("pause"); }
wrong to have "delete(fileName)" ??
Yep, in that case it is. You should probably use a std::string instead of a char* if it's an option, since it's much easier.
If it's not an option you should perhaps make the parameter in the constructor a const char*.
Maybe then consider allocating enough memory for the char *fileName to hold the content in r. Then copy the content of the r to the newly allocated memory that fileName points to, and then delete this memory in the destructor.
Not sure about the last part, like, if it's a good way to do it... But prefer using std::string over char* for strings.
You can only delete what you new'ed. Because you didn't new the string, you cannot call delete on it. That's why you get the assertion.
Moreover, any string literal should be const char (http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawik..._be_const_char).
You should not be using void main (http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawik...itle=Void_main).
You can get rid of the "void" inside void main(void) too.
And an information article on T* vs T *: Stroustrup: C++ Style and Technique FAQ
Originally Posted by Adak
Note that, if my memory serves me correctly, () has different meanings in C than in C++. In C++, () means no argument (same as (void)). In C, () in function prototype means unspecified arguments.You can get rid of the "void" inside void main(void) too.
IMHO it unnecessarily confuses beginners. There are plenty of people doing it both ways, Beginners usually have more important things to worry about...And an information article on T* vs T *: Stroustrup: C++ Style and Technique FAQ
But this is C++, so it's unnecessary.
I disagree. Many are just shown a particular style and thinks it's the only one.IMHO it unnecessarily confuses beginners. There are plenty of people doing it both ways, Beginners usually have more important things to worry about...
It's important to choose a style you're comfortable with from the get-go and stick with it IMHO.
>> But this is C++, so it's unnecessary.
Personally, I prefer to explicitly declare it void. But as you pointed out, these are just stylistic issues.
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
Yes, and wrong to have void main(void). Main must return int:
Code:int main()
My homepage
Advice: Take only as directed - If symptoms persist, please see your debugger
Linus Torvalds: "But it clearly is the only right way. The fact that everybody else does it some other way only means that they are wrong"
It must return an int, but will do so implicitly if you do not specify a return value. So even though you don't 'return', it's still important to make main() an int.
"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"
-Mark Twain
