Thread: this returned destructor called...

Originally posted by FillYourBrain
the return value isn't even used in this example:

anArray[ index ] = value;


so I have difficulty following you. returning *this accomplished nothing here.

Not quite, maybe I could not make myself clear enough.

The object MUST be of MyArray type, as operator = is redefined in this class. If operator [] would return an int, then operator = defined for int type would be called, not the one I WANTED to.

Just try out both cases, you'll see what happens.

Originally posted by lyx
Maybe do you absolutely have to have an example of the equal operator overloading. If so, then create a reference class and overload his = operator instead of doing so in the array class.

The example presents also an alternative way of handling some situations which can cause errors like over indexing.

Originally posted by lyx
What about my suggestion, why not write your *own* int reference class then?

I'm planning to extend MyArray class to template class.

Or should I write another template class for operator = for all the primary types (char, int, etc.) ?
I rather live with this small inconvenience - that assignements like int x = anArray[ index ] won't be supported / compiled.

I might change my mind

wait, wait, wait. I see where the confusion lies. First of all..

anArray[ index ] = value;

is to set an "int" inside the array. you are supposed to return a reference to an int in operator[]. This would set the thing with value.

I misunderstood but the example is still wrong. It makes no sense to return a *this because that's not what the array contains. You can simply return a reference to the corrected int instead. operator= on the array class doesn't make sense as a solution.

in addition, setting the last element as an alternative to the incorrect one they asked for is not safe as it would overwrite their valid data.

but...

myArray = 4;

what does that mean? When you set an array equal to 4. what is that? Overloading operators is there to make things more readable, not more difficult to understand. really, it'll work that way (starts to become a state engine for no reason though) but he's writing a chapter in a book on operator overloading. It's incorrect to make an equals operator that makes no logical sense like that. that's all I'm saying. Also, it's more correct to return a reference to the thing you're actually expecting.

what would this give you?

int i = myArray[3];

it would return a myArray reference? not terribly helpful if you ask me!

Originally posted by FillYourBrain
wait, wait, wait. I see where the confusion lies. First of all..

anArray[ index ] = value;

is to set an "int" inside the array. you are supposed to return a reference to an int in operator[]. This would set the thing with value.

I misunderstood but the example is still wrong. It makes no sense to return a *this because that's not what the array contains. You can simply return a reference to the corrected int instead. operator= on the array class doesn't make sense as a solution.

Ok, FillYourBrain, I got it. There's no need to overload operator =...

Code:

int& MyArray::operator [] ( int index_in )
{
	// range check
	if ( index_in > myLastIndex )
	{
		myIndex = myLastIndex;
	}
	else
	{
		myIndex = index_in;		
	}
	return myArray[myIndex];
}

in addition, setting the last element as an alternative to the incorrect one they asked for is not safe as it would overwrite their valid data.

Of course, it's just a temporary workaround, I planned to do some error handling and logging here.

yeah, carlos. Sorry I misunderstood you for about a whole page. The proposal that you were making was strange and unexpected so I went off in another direction.

he could certainly justify an operator=(MyArray & arr). It makes sense to set an array equal to an array. That would be a good example. Not that Carlos is looking for examples from me