RE: [Dev-C++] 'New Source File' bug

[Ioannis V. <no...@ya...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev...@li... 
> [mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf 
> Of Devin Carless
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 6:20 PM
> To: dev...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Dev-C++] 'New Source File' bug
> 
> > 
> > What trouble.
> 
>   Initializing an array/vector of objects, of which some of the 
> members are consts.  That was my first problem.  My second 
> was push_back() decided to stop working.  (This led me to 
> look somewhat askance at vectors, and I still see them as 
> exceedingly finicky things.)  Initializing a vector to anything 
> interesting including constants without using push_back() is 
> difficult; I ultimately solved the problem by ripping out almost 
> every const in my project (not without some satisfaction)
> and using a Set() function.  (I implemented a rudimentary 

I currently have little knowledge of the standard library and i am
currrently learning about it (currently reading 16 chapter of TC++PL
Special Edition). But with as many as i know so far you can do many
things with vectors:


const vector<int>::size_type SIZE=100;

vector<int>array(SIZE);

for(vector<int>::size_type  i==0; i<SIZE; i++)
  array[i]=...;


Anyway i think it is our lack of knowledge, not vectors. When i finish
the 16th chapter i will resend an email telling you how you can to
assignments using vector constructors.



> sort of data protection by only allowing anything to be 
> changed if the Name member was set to the constant 
> NULLSTR.)  
>   I've also had problems initializing vectors from arrays. 
> Vectors can be initialized in a wonderful panoply of ways, 
> all of which are thoroughly useless for my purposes.  It's 
> recently occurred to me that this is probably a job for an 
> overloaded assignment operator.  I'm not certain how to 
> do this for a vector (while vectors are finicky, templates are 
> just plain sticky, and I haven't read much about them 
> because I don't expect to need them for a while.)


I am confident that standard containers are better than built in arrays.

You can overload an operator as a global function


e.g.

vector<int> &operator=(vector<int>&a, const vector<int> &b)
{ ... }


or better define it as a template:

template <class T>
vector<T> &operator=(vector<T> &a, const vector<T> &b)
{ ... }


>   Most of my problems, I can see, stem from the fact that 
> I learned (and loved) C long before ever setting eyes on
> C++.  


Yes, me too. But C++ is 10000% better. I suggest "The C++ Programming
Language" 3rd edition or Special Edition by Bjarne Stroustrup (the
creator of C++).


>(My first reaction to C++ was 'They've turned
> something beautiful into a hideous bloated beast.')  So I 

No it is better.


> despise references with a hate the KKK can only dream of 
> achieving, find consts to be a pain in the colon that extends 
> all the way up the intestines, and find C++ is excessively 
> schoolmarmish about initialization.  (Don't get me wrong - I 
> adore classes, inheritance, 
> polymorphism and even strong typing.  On the whole, 
> it's a much better language.

It is better. :)



Ioannis
 
* Ioannis Vranos
* Programming pages: http://www.noicys.d2g.com
* Alternative URL: http://run.to/noicys