On Apr 21, 5:26 pm, Jorgen Grahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 06:14:08 -0700 (PDT), NickC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Apr 15, 1:46 pm, Brian Vanderburg II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> This will automatically call the constructors of any contained objects > >> to initialize the string. The implicit assignment operator > >> automatically performs the assignment of any contained objects. > >> Destruction is also automatic. When 'p1' goes out of scope, during the > >> destructor the destructor for all contained objects is called. > > > Yeah, C++ does try to be helpful, and all of those automatic copy > > constructor, assignment operator and destructor implementations screw > > up royally when confronted with pointers > > I think that those are newbie problems. The rules for those three > "default implementations" are simple and match what C does for > structs. Use the standard containers, make a habit of forbidding > copying of objects which make no sense copying, and remember the > "explicit" keyword, and you will rarely have problems with this.
Yes, but why should you have to remember? Wouldn't it be less error- prone to make objects uncopyable and constructors explicit unless stated otherwise? (Yes, default implementations for structs had to match C, but "class" was a new keyword.) > > Other things like methods (including destructors!) being non-virtual > > by default also make C++ code annoyingly easy to get wrong (without it > > obviously looking wrong). > > The other side of the coin is that you can write tiny classes in C++ > with *no overhead*. If my class Foo can be implemented as an integer, > it doesn't need to be slower or take more space than an integer. It > can have value semantics, live on the stack etc, like an integer. > > I assume Java programmers avoid such types, and I assume it decreases > type safety in their programs. I haven't written in Java since version 1.3, so maybe things have changed. But last time I checked, if you want tiny value-semantics types in Java, you're stuck with the built-in ones. One of my biggest gripes about that language. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
