Search Results

Search found 1100 results on 44 pages for 'bitwise operators'.

Page 14/44 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >

  • Operator== in derived class never gets called.

    - by Robin Welch
    Can someone please put me out of my misery with this? I'm trying to figure out why a derived operator== never gets called in a loop. To simplify the example, here's my Base and Derived class: class Base { // ... snipped bool operator==( const Base& other ) const { return name_ == other.name_; } }; class Derived : public Base { // ... snipped bool operator==( const Derived& other ) const { return ( static_cast<const Base&>( *this ) == static_cast<const Base&>( other ) ? age_ == other.age_ : false ); }; Now when I instantiate and compare like this ... Derived p1("Sarah", 42); Derived p2("Sarah", 42); bool z = ( p1 == p2 ); ... all is fine. Here the operator== from Derived gets called, but when I loop over a list, comparing items in a list of pointers to Base objects ... list<Base*> coll; coll.push_back( new Base("fred") ); coll.push_back( new Derived("sarah", 42) ); // ... snipped // Get two items from the list. Base& obj1 = **itr; Base& obj2 = **itr2; cout << obj1.asString() << " " << ( ( obj1 == obj2 ) ? "==" : "!=" ) << " " << obj2.asString() << endl; Here asString() (which is virtual and not shown here for brevity) works fine, but obj1 == obj2 always calls the Base operator== even if the two objects are Derived. I know I'm going to kick myself when I find out what's wrong, but if someone could let me down gently it would be much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Index, assignment and increment in one statement behaves differently in C++ and C#. Why?

    - by Ivan Zlatanov
    Why is this example of code behaving differently in c++ and C#. [C++ Example] int arr[2]; int index = 0; arr[index] = ++index; The result of which will be arr[1] = 1; [C# Example] int[] arr = new int[2]; int index = 0; arr[index] = ++index; The result of which will be arr[0] = 1; I find this very strange. Surely there must be some rationale for both languages to implement it differently? I wonder what would C++/CLI output?

    Read the article

  • What are the best practices for implementing the == operator for a class in C#?

    - by remio
    While implementing an == operator, I have the feeling that I am missing some essential points. Hence, I am searching some best practices around that. Here are some related questions I am thinking about: How to cleanly handle the reference comparison? Should it be implemented through a IEquatable<T>-like interface? Or overriding object.Equals? And what about the != operator? (this list might not be exhaustive).

    Read the article

  • Swig C++ Lua Pass class by reference

    - by Jeremy
    I don't know why I'm having a hard time with this. All I want to do is this: class foo { public: foo(){} ~foo(){} float a,b; }; class foo2 { public: foo2(){} foo2(const foo &f){*this = f;} ~foo2(){} void operator=(const foo& f){ x = f.a; y = f.b; } float x,y; }; /* Usage(cpp): foo f; foo2 f2(f); //or using the = operator f2 = f; */ The problem I'm having is that, after swigging this code, I can't figure out how to make the lua script play nice. /* Usage(lua) f = example.foo() f2 = example.foo2(f) --error */ The error I get is "Wrong arguments for overloaded function 'new_Foo2'": Possible c/c++ prototypes are: foo2() foo2(foo const &) The same thing happens if I try and use do f2 = f. As I understand it everything is stored as a pointer so I did try adding an additional constructor that took a pointer to foo but to no avail.

    Read the article

  • == Operator and operands

    - by rahul
    I want to check whether a value is equal to 1. Is there any difference in the following lines of code Evaluated value == 1 1 == evaluated value in terms of the compiler execution

    Read the article

  • How to make += operator keep the object reference?

    - by orloffm
    Say, I have a class: class M { public int val; And also a + operator inside it: public static M operator +(M a, M b) { M c = new M(); c.val = a.val + b.val; return c; } } And I've got a List of the objects of the class: List<M> ms = new List(); M obj = new M(); obj.val = 5; ms.Add(obj); Some other object: M addie = new M(); addie.val = 3; I can do this: ms[0] += addie; and it surely works as I expect - the value in the list is changed. But if I want to do M fromList = ms[0]; fromList += addie; it doesn't change the value in ms for obvious reasons. But intuitively I expect ms[0] to also change after that. Really, I pick the object from the list and then I increase it's value with some other object. So, since I held a reference to ms[0] in fromList before addition, I want still to hold it in fromList after performing it. Are there any ways to achieve that?

    Read the article

  • Using AND vs && in a for loop (Not related to precedence?)

    - by Peter
    Why is it that this code prints "Hello!" four times and then prints "1": <?php for ($i=1 AND $blah=1; $i<5; $i++) echo("Hello!"); echo($blah); ?> While this doesn't print out "Hello!" at all and then prints "1": <?php for ($i=1 && $blah=1; $i<5; $i++) echo("Hello!"); echo($blah); ?> I know AND and && have different precedences, but that doesn't seem to apply here. What am I missing? (I'm using a variant of the code above, since I will use $blah within the for loop, and I want to set the value for it). Thanks for any help!

    Read the article

  • An operator == whose parameters are non-const references

    - by Eduardo León
    I this post, I've seen this: class MonitorObjectString: public MonitorObject { // some other declarations friend inline bool operator==(/*const*/ MonitorObjectString& lhs, /*const*/ MonitorObjectString& rhs) { return lhs.fVal==rhs.fVal; } } Before we can continue, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: I am not questioning anyone's ability to code. I am just wondering why someone would need non-const references in a comparison. The poster of that question did not write that code. This was just in case. This is important too: I added both /*const*/s and reformatted the code. Now, we get back to the topic: I can't think of a sane use of the equality operator that lets you modify its by-ref arguments. Do you?

    Read the article

  • problem with QDataStream & QDataStream::operator>> ( char *& s )

    - by yan bellavance
    QFile msnLogFile(item->data(Qt::UserRole).toString()); QDataStream logDataStream; if(msnLogFile.exists()){ msnLogFile.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly); logDataStream.setDevice(&msnLogFile); QByteArray logBlock; logDataStream >> logBlock; } This code doesnt work. The QByte that results is empty. Same thing if I use a char* . Oddely enough the same code works in another program. Im tying to find the difference between both. This works if i use int,uint, quint8, etc

    Read the article

  • C++ overide global operator comma gives error

    - by uray
    the second function gives error C2803 http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/zy7kx46x%28VS.80%29.aspx : 'operator ,' must have at least one formal parameter of class type. any clue? template<class T,class A = std::allocator<T>> class Sequence : public std::vector<T,A> { public: Sequence<T,A>& operator,(const T& a) { this->push_back(a); return *this; } Sequence<T,A>& operator,(const Sequence<T,A>& a) { for(Sequence<T,A>::size_type i=0 ; i<a.size() ; i++) { this->push_back(a.at(i)); } return *this; } }; //this works! template<typename T> Sequence<T> operator,(const T& a, const T&b) { Sequence<T> seq; seq.push_back(a); seq.push_back(b); return seq; } //this gives error C2803! Sequence<double> operator,(const double& a, const double& b) { Sequence<double> seq; seq.push_back(a); seq.push_back(b); return seq; }

    Read the article

  • Is there an exponent operator in C#?

    - by Charlie
    For example, does an operator exist to handle this? float Result, Number1, Number2; Number1 = 2; Number2 = 2; Result = Number1 (operator) Number2; In the past the ^ operator has served as an exponential operator in other languages, but in C# it is a bit-wise operator. Do I have to write a loop or include another namespace to handle exponential operations? If so, how do I handle exponential operations using non-integers?

    Read the article

  • Why is Decimal('0') > 9999.0 True in Python?

    - by parxier
    This is somehow related to my question Why is ''0 True in Python? In Python 2.6.4: >> Decimal('0') > 9999.0 True From the answer to my original question I understand that when comparing objects of different types in Python 2.x the types are ordered by their name. But in this case: >> type(Decimal('0')).__name__ > type(9999.0).__name__ False Why is Decimal('0') > 9999.0 == True then? UPDATE: I usually work on Ubuntu (Linux 2.6.31-20-generic #57-Ubuntu SMP Mon Feb 8 09:05:19 UTC 2010 i686 GNU/Linux, Python 2.6.4 (r264:75706, Dec 7 2009, 18:45:15) [GCC 4.4.1] on linux2). On Windows (WinXP Professional SP3, Python 2.6.4 (r264:75706, Nov 3 2009, 13:23:17) [MSC v.1500 32 bit (Intel)] on win32) my original statement works differently: >> Decimal('0') > 9999.0 False I even more puzzled now. %-(

    Read the article

  • undefined C/C++ symbol as operator

    - by uray
    I notice that the character/symbol '`' and '@' is not used as an operator in C/C++, does anyone know the reason or historically why its so? if its really not used, is it safe to define those symbols as another operator/statement using #define?

    Read the article

  • R: How to pass a list of selection expressions (strings in this case) to the subset function?

    - by John
    Here is some example data: data = data.frame(series = c("1a", "1b", "1e"), reading = c(0.1, 0.4, 0.6)) > data series reading 1 1a 0.1 2 1b 0.4 3 1e 0.6 Which I can pull out selective single rows using subset: > subset (data, series == "1a") series reading 1 1a 0.1 And pull out multiple rows using a logical OR > subset (data, series == "1a" | series == "1e") series reading 1 1a 0.1 3 1e 0.6 But if I have a long list of series expressions, this gets really annoying to input, so I'd prefer to define them in a better way, something like this: series_you_want = c("1a", "1e") (although even this sucks a little) and be able to do something like this, subset (data, series == series_you_want) The above obviously fails, I'm just not sure what the best way to do this is?

    Read the article

  • Performance difference in for loop condition?

    - by CSharperWithJava
    Hello all, I have a simple question that I am posing mostly for my curiousity. What are the differences between these two lines of code? (in C++) for(int i = 0; i < N, N > 0; i++) for(int i = 0; i < N && N > 0; i++) The selection of the conditions is completely arbitrary, I'm just interested in the differences between , and &&. I'm not a beginner to coding by any means, but I've never bothered with the comma operator. Are there performance/behavior differences or is it purely aesthetic? One last note, I know there are bigger performance fish to fry than a conditional operator, but I'm just curious. Indulge me. Edit Thanks for your answers. It turns out the code that prompted this question had misused the comma operator in the way I've described. I wondered what the difference was and why it wasn't a && operator, but it was just written incorrectly. I didn't think anything was wrong with it because it worked just fine. Thanks for straightening me out.

    Read the article

  • using 'new' operator

    - by notLikeCpp
    I have simple task concerning 'new' operator. I need to create array of 10 chars and then input those chars using 'cin'. Should it look like this ? : char c = new char[10]; for(int i=0; i < 10; i++) { cin >> char[i] >> endl; }

    Read the article

  • Providing less than operator for one element of a pair

    - by Koszalek Opalek
    What would be the most elegant way too fix the following code: #include <vector> #include <map> #include <set> using namespace std; typedef map< int, int > row_t; typedef vector< row_t > board_t; typedef row_t::iterator area_t; bool operator< ( area_t const& a, area_t const& b ) { return( a->first < b->first ); }; int main( int argc, char* argv[] ) { int row_num; area_t it; set< pair< int, area_t > > queue; queue.insert( make_pair( row_num, it ) ); // does not compile }; One way to fix it is moving the definition of less< to namespace std (I know, you are not supposed to do it.) namespace std { bool operator< ( area_t const& a, area_t const& b ) { return( a->first < b->first ); }; }; Another obvious solution is defining less than< for pair< int, area_t but I'd like to avoid that and be able to define the operator only for the one element of the pair where it is not defined.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >