Thread: New typecast Style in C++?

It's hardly new, it's been around since C++ was standardized. T(x) is sugar for a static_cast.

learn to either RTFM or google for questions like this. static casts were part of the oritinal c++ language. If you don't know what it is, then you need to either look it up in a textbook or search google for it. There are two other kinds of casts as well which you should learn about.

That style of casting is nice because it follows the constructor look and feel.

I.E.

Code:

class Bob {
  public:
    Bob(int);
};

Would allow you to do

Code:

Bob(10);
int x;
Bob(x);

The only time it gets annoying is with two word type names

Code:

unsigned long (x);

just doesn't work Have to do

Code:

(unsigned long)(x);

And Ancient Dragon you haven't been here long enough to pick on Mister C.

Ohhh touchy today! Some people can't take critizism, even from newer members.

Some people can't take critizism

You don't seem to be taking criticism that well...

In general you sohuld avoid casting as much as possible. The only time One really needs to cast in C++ is to handle conversions from void* (to void* are still implicit). But in that case you shouldn't be using void*'s at all.

Casting is really one of the worst things C++ has. That and pointers. Being able to forcibly convert an object to another type never results in good things happening.

Originally Posted by orbitz

In general you sohuld avoid casting as much as possible. The only time One really needs to cast in C++ is to handle conversions from void* (to void* are still implicit). But in that case you shouldn't be using void*'s at all.

Casting is really one of the worst things C++ has. That and pointers. Being able to forcibly convert an object to another type never results in good things happening.

Really? Hmm so if I want to truncate my results in the middle of a math formula what should I do? Now you might say that my example isn't a "real life" example but I shall counter with: Significant figures which involves a lot of rounding and/or truncation.

I have a class that store rational numbers as the quotient of two integers. I want to include the ability to get a decimial representation that is a double. I also want it to be clean and simple to use and allow the same style of programming that has been done in the last 20 years. Go!

As to pointers: I want to apply a user defined function to each item in a container. Create a generic function to do this without using a pointer. And go!

As to pointers: I want to apply a user defined function to each item in a container. Create a generic function to do this without using a pointer. And go!

You seem to be confusing the requirement of pointeres to accomplish things in C++ with pointers being a good thing. Just because C++ lacks decent means of accomplishing the task doesn't mean it's a very good way.

Ok, I take back my rather short-sighted statement about casting. Anything beyond static_cast should be avoided (although dynamic_cast has some uses) *generally*. I believe the results of a reinterpret_cast is generally implementation defined (correct me if I'm wrong). Removing const or volatile is almost always wrong. But i still stand by my "you sohuld avoid casting in C++ as much as possible". Using casting to suppress an error from your compiler is almost always wrong, which is what the majority of instances of casting I see appear to do.

Although, overloading operator() and using references would allow you to do that without pointers, wouldn't it? But taht certianly is a poor solution IMO.