| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Comments:
<0> yea heh
<1> i wanted to see if anyone got it
<1> hahaha
<0> hahah
<1> MrAshe, yuo think that will overwhelm him? heh
<2> I just think they're not related
<1> Cowmoo, are you an arab-language speaker or did you google for that? ;)
<0> native speaker
<1> cool
<0> you?
<1> MrAshe, they aren't related? at all? how do you figure?
<1> i mean they are orthogonal concepts, sure
<1> but i ***ure you they are relateable/related for at least one meaning of the world related
<1> Cowmoo, i'm not arabic at all, don't know the language, i just think arabic script looks pretty ;)
<0> haha, great
<2> int const, T const *
<2> No reference, const
<2> Go figure
<2> Using const where needed and using references where needed is not related, that's all
<3> probably why cleaning memory...
<2> Weird people using alloca
<2> OSVERSIONINFO osvi;
<2> There, not needed anymore
<3> please advise
<1> MrAshe, i think you are using a very narrow definition of the word 'related'
<2> Ok, then float and mutable are related, they're in the same language
<1> yep
<1> sure are related
<2> Kind of like MmmCake and dumb***
<2> But there the relationship is much closer
<1> riight
<1> clever
<1> you are a witty person
<1> anyway const and references/pointers is related when it comes to function prototypes
<2> Like arrays, templates and throw specifications
<1> because it is kind of dumb to do: int foo(int param); whereas int foo(const int & param) makes more sense
<2> Actually, the second one is plain stupid
<1> heh that's true
<1> ok replace int with MyCl***
<1> sorry
<1> i am retarded
<1> nevermind
<1> int foo(MyCl*** arg) <-- a little heavy, weird, and retarded?
<1> int foo(const MyCl*** & arg) <--- better
<2> It'd be the same without the const, as far as "heaviness" is concerned
<1> int foo(const MyCl*** arg) <-- really retarded
<2> So, const and reference, different things
<2> He needs to learn how to use const properly
<2> He needs to learn how to use references properly
<2> Two things, distinct
<1> they are not that distinct
<1> the whole reason why you const the reference is because it is a reference and you are saying to the outside world "hey don't worry i won't modify the thing you are giving me!"
<4> once a const is set right.. it cant be changed to refer to another object, so what would be the point of saying.. say... int foo(MyCl*** const & arg) ? :o
<1> if you leave out the const, you are saying "hey thansk for the reference, i *will* be changing this most likely"
<2> A non-const reference can't be changed to refer to another object either
<4> yeah
<1> Antrix, well the point is yo are saying to the outside world "within this function I won't be changing your object"
<1> so, MrAshe, i reiterate: const and references go well together, they are related in a fairly narrow sense of the word 'related'
<4> but what i put above sets the reference itself as constant... could u not still change the object the reference refers to ?
<2> Just like mutable and references go well together
<2> Or register
<2> Or static
<1> Antrix, actually you are incorrect.. const is tricky to read..
<4> so
<2> Then const works just the same with pointers, so..
<1> MrAshe, obviously you lack the mental plasticity to understand my argument, therefore i will drop it. but you are wrong and I am right! HA!
<4> int foo(const MyCl*** & arg) == int foo(MyCl*** const & arg)
<4> ??
<2> You can't be right, since I can ban you, duh
<2> (weird people)
<4> oh crap!!!
<4> lol!
<1> Antrix, yes, the two are equivalent
<2> And MyCl*** const & is more right
<4> man...
<4> ok
<1> MrAshe, that is where you are wrong: i can be both banned and right. that is an incorrect ***ertion.
<4> but
<2> I could make a bad joke about being conservative, but I don't know if right is conservative or not
<5> MrAshe: like because it's placed to the right?
<2> Yes
<2> It wouldn't be more left if it got placed to the left though
<2> Or would it be
<2> Hmm
<4> lol
<1> haha
<4> but seriously, which one is best to use? if they are logically equalent :o
<2> T const
<4> and why allow both
<2> It works only for the left most
<1> Antrix, take it up with Kernighan.. or maybe Ritchie.. the bastards
<2> T const * const * const * const p; <= always on the right
<4> yeah gonna have some words with that man
<2> And you can read it right to left that way
<2> Not like you need to read it cause it's plain obvious by looking at it, but still
<1> MrAshe, yeah it's as obvious as obfuscated perl
<1> to someone who is just learning
<2> Someone who's not learning wouldn't type such a thing, except maybe Run, but Run likes people with blue hair, so who knows
<4> its as clear as a sega megadrive emulater written in brain**** and then encrypted using a 128 bit algorithm
<4> emulator*
<4> blue hair??
<2> ..++>,++++,+++++++++++++++>>--+..,
<2> Like this?
<1> yeah, and you mean AFTER losing the encryption key
<2> (yes, it's efficient, only few instructions)
<4> thats quite impressive
<1> MrAshe, is that valid C++?!
<1> or perl?
<2> Nope, it's valid brain****
<1> ah
<1> heh
<2> But you can easily do something similar in C++ by overloading operators
<4> does it play dreamcast games as well ?
<1> anyway antrix pay no attention to mrashe who is tyring to confuse you -- he hates to admit it but const and references go well together.. like love and marriage it's a relationship you can't disparage
<2> Have --, ++, *, ! and whatever return a T&, and --*!++etcetc++p; works fine
<2> I'll make it simple for you MmmCake
<2> When do you p*** a T &?
<1> when you are promising to modify the T, or when you are a student that didn't learn const yet
<4> i understand all the main concept, its just some way things are done in c++ (e.g. those two statements being logically equalent) which puts me off sometimes
<2> "that didn't learn const yet"
<2> See, no reference
<2> I won't even have to type more, thanks
<1> i think you are making a logical error
<1> p -> q doesn't mean p <-> q
<2> T& and T const &
<2> T* and T const *
<2> What's the common point, references, or const?
<2> Oh wait, it's const, amazing!
<1> they are both references
<2> No, they're not
<2> And I wonder why books have a chapter about const and one about reference, and not one about both at the same time
<1> yes, and in the chapter about const, you will find examples of why const is useful, and the very reason why it's useful is because it is a way to promise to the outside world that you will not be modifying the contents of a pointer or a reference DUH
<1> (among other reasons why it's useful)
<2> So, different concept, excellent
<1> i never said they are the same concept
<2> Btw don't forget a pointer is not a reference, that could be useful
<1> i said they are related
<4> brb i'm writing the matrix
<1> you can think of a pointer as a more powerful sort of reference
<2> Except it's not
<1> yes it is
<6> they're not related
<1> yes they are
<2> Wonder how p***ing by value is related to references
<2> Go figure
<4> how about... a constant pointer and a reference.. they both relate to a piece of data and neither of them can be changed.. the pointer contains the memory location of the value, but what does the reference contain?
<2> Whatever the compiler decides
<4> but surely that has to be a memory location to ?
<1> Antrix, don't let anyone know i told you, but internally really a reference and a pointer are the same thing they just have different syntax
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
#chatzone
#linux
totem decoders fedora
browseatwork.net
#linux
default password for deepfreeze
You must accept Sun's EULA prior to successfully installing this package
openser ubuntu binary
ubuntu GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap is missing
no wireless networks found.
|
|