Prev: Static var in mixed C/C++ program. do you recommend?
Next: Keeping types and functions in separate namespaces
From: Seungbeom Kim on 1 Apr 2010 06:54
On 2010-04-01 07:20, DeMarcus wrote:
> Seungbeom Kim wrote:
>> On 2010-03-30 08:49, DeMarcus wrote:
>>>
>>> class SomeClass
>>> {
>>> public:
>>>
>>> void fnc( int& a );
>>> void fnc( int& a, int& b );
>>> void fnc( int& a, int& b, int& c );
>>>
>>> // Now insert a pointer if we want to disable (b).
>>> void fnc( int& a, int* b, int& c );
>>> };
>>
>> Doesn't the last overload have to deal with non-null values of b anyway?
>> Then I don't see the value of having the third overload separately.
>>
>
> The point is that the last overload allows us to write
> fnc( a, NULL, c );
> which the others don't. The point is that in the last overload we don't
> use b, why it's important that we could check in compile time that b for
> sure is NULL (if it's possible).

You missed the point. I asked:
"Doesn't the last overload have to deal with non-null values of b anyway?"
in other words, shouldn't fnc(a, &b, c) be the same as fnc(a, b, c)?
Then we have a redundancy; we could just do without the third overload
entirely.

--
Seungbeom Kim

[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Static var in mixed C/C++ program. do you recommend?
Next: Keeping types and functions in separate namespaces