Re: "Linus Torvalds Was (Sorta) Wrong About C++"
On 12.03.2015 22:24, Paavo Helde wrote:
Which errors do you have in mind that C doesn't catch at compile time
but C++ does?
Are you kidding?
LOL, no but with your examples I'm sure YOU are kidding:
int n = 100;
long* p = malloc(n);
p[n-1] = 42;
std::vector<int> x;
x.push_back(123);
std::cerr << x[-1] << std::endl;
Totally caught at compile time *cough* NOT
enum a { a1, a2 };
enum b { b1, b2 };
void g(enum b arg) {}
g(a1);
Yup, that one is legit. It was also the example I explicitly gave.
// a.h
void foo(int x);
// a.c
// not including a.h
void foo(long x) {}
// main.c
#include "a.h"
foo(42);
ok, the latter is a linker error in C++, not compile time, but still much
better than a random error on random architecture
Oh, that is indeed neat! Nice.
The list goes on, but the main point is that in normal C++ one does not
use known error-prone constructs like C-style casts,
Haha, sure, it does the super easy thing of having a HANDFULL of
different cast operators which makes it very easy and intuitive to use.
so more errors are
caught in compile-time even if the corresponding C-style code would
compile without errors in C++.
Well to be honest, you only came up with one example that was news to
me. The vector thing isn't caught at compile time AT ALL, the enum
example was the example I gave in the first place and the last example
is indeed neat. My C compiler could and shold do that, too. I wish it did.
Cheers,
Johannes
--
Wo hattest Du das Beben nochmal GENAU vorhergesagt?
Zumindest nicht ?ffentlich!
Ah, der neueste und bis heute genialste Streich unsere gro?en
Kosmologen: Die Geheim-Vorhersage.
- Karl Kaos ?ber R?diger Thomas in dsa <hidbv3$om2$1@speranza.aioe.org>