On Wednesday 06 August 2003 09:30, Sebastian Kapfer wrote: > > They do. My app would be broken from the start if I could not rely on > > this capability. This style of type conversion is covered in elementary > > C++ books by Bjarne. It's not unusual. > > Exactly where? I don't remember such casts from Bjarne's book. Maybe with > a big warning sign next to the code?
C++ 2nd Ed. page 96 and there is a warning to avoid "explicit type conversion". I choose to use casting despite the warning. It's fine to point out potential problems with using it, but it's not useful to denigrate a person's choices and style. I learned last night that there is a 3rd Ed. Evidently things have changed and the complex language has gotten more complex - trying to be all things to all people. If this continues, C++ will be too complex for normal programmers. C++ should be backwards compatible, so I think my 2nd Ed. suits my needs. I use C++ features for templates, encapsulation, STL, inheritance (not much), and "objectification". I do low level stuff, so I want to use the C capabilites. If the C capabilities are removed from future versions of C++, then I will recode for C. This demonstrates that I need what C offers more than I need what C++ offers. -- Mike Mueller -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
