program crash

Hello..

Why would that make my program crash?

Code:

---

class session {
        public:
                session() { }
                string get_setting(string name);
};

string session::get_setting(string name) {
        //sth
        return 0;
}

void somefunc() {
        session *s = new session();
       
        string name = "some name";
        s->get_setting(name);
}

---

What is that: "session() { }" doing inside public?

The crash is not because of the class for sure.

Does your program segfault? Is that what you mean by crash? Or does the console window just flash so quickly that you can't even see it?

FAQ > How do I... (Level 1) > Stop my Windows Console from disappearing everytime I run my program?

Or does your program not compile, possibly because you don't include <string>?

Can't you define "s" just like this?:

Code:

---

session *s;

---

It seems strange to use "new" in a pointer or an array...

Code:

---

string session::get_setting(string name) {
        //sth
        return 0;
}

---

I'm not sure 0 is a valid string . . . try returning "".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwks

Code:

---

string session::get_setting(string name) {
        //sth
        return 0;
}

---

I'm not sure 0 is a valid string . . . try returning "".

---

Yeah, you're right.. Seems like string cant return 0.. What would be the right approach to do that kind of function? Im used to return pointer to char string and 0 on error.

As I already said, return an empty string:

Code:

---

return "";

---

Even better, return a default constructed string:

Code:

---

return string();

---

>> Can't you define "s" just like this?: session *s;
No, that would be just an uninitialized pointer. You would probably just want to define s like this (maybe what you meant):

Code:

---

session s;

---

Is it okay to return string or would you pro guys prefer to set a variable instead?

Returning an empty string would be the way I'd do it.

>> Is it okay to return string or would you pro guys prefer to set a variable instead?

I'm not sure what you mean. If you don't have any data to return and you want to return an empty string, I would probably do it the way I showed.

It doesn't really matter, but some people prefer to have a single local variable for these types of things, and that variable is always returned. If there is no data to return and you want to return an empty string, then just don't set the variable to any value. If there is data, assign it to that variable. This can help make the return value optimization work. But I really don't think you should worry about that kind of optimization in this case.