Thread: structs of structs

Originally Posted by Salem

> C++ is backwards compatible with C
No it isn't.
It's a common misconception that C++ is a superset of C, it isn't.
http://david.tribble.com/text/cdiffs.htm

There's stuff in C which simply doesn't work in C++, and stuff which works differently in C++.
Simply compiling C code as C++ will cause you grief eventually.

I know it isn't a superset but I do recall Bjarne mentioning backwards compatibility:
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html

It's in one of those somewhere
*edit*

I know certain things just don't work at all, mainly owing to C++ type-safety.

It isn't backwards compatable. Didn't you ever learn that in true/false situations, if any part of it is false, the whole thing is?


Quzah.

Originally Posted by rotis23

Borland Windows compiler doesn't like a cast'less malloc:

Code:

my_parent = malloc(sizeof(parent));

fails with:

Code:

Error E2034 struct.c 12: Cannot convert 'void *' to 'parent *' in function
main()

I'm joing a little late -- but I'll throw in my 2 cents worth anyway.

If you are using a c++ compiler to compile c-code, the compiler will treat the c-code as if it were c++. c++ standards require malloc() to be typecast to the appropriate type. That is one instance where c++ is NOT backward compatable to C. With VC++ compiler, all files that have a *.cpp extension are compiled as c++ code. Files with *.c extension are exclusively C. So if you tried to use a c++ class in a *.c file the compiler will complain bitterly. I suspect that Borland compiler is doing the same thing.

Or you might need to use

Code:

#include <stdlib.h>

stdlib.h has the prototype for malloc().