Re: Good idea or gimmick: Go-style OO-programming in C++ ?

From:

woodbrian77@gmail.com

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:26:50 -0700 (PDT)

Message-ID:

<8c99808e-0758-4f74-8230-0c56b7bd0e09@googlegroups.com>

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 4:19:13 PM UTC, =D6=F6 Tiib wrote:

I can summarize it like that for C++:

* As pointers use only smart pointers Prefer std::unique_ptr and

  std::shared_ptr (with its weak brother). std::auto_ptr has odd

  semantics but is otherwise fine too.

* You may pass references to smart pointers, but you may not store

  those.

* Never dereference a pointer without comparing it with 'nullptr'

  first. Always check the results of std::weak_ptr::lock().

* Never take out raw pointer from smart pointer unless interfacing

  with module written in C.

* Use keyword 'new' only in context of initializing or assigning

  to std::unique_ptr or even better write 'make_unique' template

  (it is just missing from standard ATM) and do not ever use

  'new' in C++ code.

* Never use keyword 'delete'.

I will report one thing.

#if 0
  char* CstringGive ()
  {
    ::cmw::marshalling_integer slen(*this);
    char* cstr = ::new char[slen.value + 1];

    try {
      Give(cstr, slen.value);
      *(cstr + slen.value) = '\0';
    } catch (...) {
      ::delete [] cstr;
      throw;
    }
    return cstr;
  }
#else
  char* CstringGive ()
  {
    ::cmw::marshalling_integer slen(*this);
    ::std::unique_ptr<char[]> cstr(::new char[slen.value + 1]);

    Give(cstr.get(), slen.value);
    *(cstr.get() + slen.value) = '\0';
    return cstr.get();
  }
#endif

An executable produced by g++ 4.7.2 with -Os is 32 bytes
larger using the second version than the first. Maybe it's
a weakness of this compiler? :)

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - impeach Obama.
http://webEbenezer.net