Search Results

Search found 2479 results on 100 pages for 'operator'.

Page 4/100 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How to change the meaning of pointer access operator

    - by kumar_m_kiran
    Hi All, This may be very obvious question, pardon me if so. I have below code snippet out of my project, #include <stdio.h> class X { public: int i; X() : i(0) {}; }; int main(int argc,char *arv[]) { X *ptr = new X[10]; unsigned index = 5; cout<<ptr[index].i<<endl; return 0; } Question Can I change the meaning of the ptr[index] ? Because I need to return the value of ptr[a[index]] where a is an array for subindexing. I do not want to modify existing source code. Any new function added which can change the behavior is needed. Since the access to index operator is in too many places (536 to be precise) in my code, and has complex formulas inside the index subscript operator, I am not inclined to change the code in many locations. PS : 1. I tried operator overload and came to conclusion that it is not possible. 2. Also p[i] will be transformed into *(p+i). I cannot redefine the basic operator '+'. So just want to reconfirm my understanding and if there are any possible short-cuts to achieve. Else I need fix it by royal method of changing every line of code :) .

    Read the article

  • C++ template class error with operator ==

    - by Tommy
    Error: error C2678: binary '==' : no operator found which takes a left-hand operand of type 'const entry' (or there is no acceptable conversion) The function: template <class T, int maxSize> int indexList<T, maxSize>::search(const T& target) const { for (int i = 0; i < maxSize; i++) if (elements[i] == target) //ERROR??? return i; // target found at position i // target not found return -1; } indexList.h indexList.cpp Is this suppose to be an overloaded operator? Being a template class I am not sure I understand the error? Solution- The overload function in the class now declared const: //Operators bool entry::operator == (const entry& dE) const <-- { return (name ==dE.name); }

    Read the article

  • How to define a static operator<<?

    - by Pietro M
    Is it possible to define a static insertion operator which operates on the static members of a class only? Something like: class MyClass { public: static std::string msg; static MyClass& operator<< (const std::string& token) { msg.append(token); return *this; // error, static } }; alternatively: static MyClass& operator<< (MyClass&, const std::string &token) { MyClass::msg.append(token); return ?; } This is how I would like to use it: MyClass << "message1" << "message2"; Thank you!

    Read the article

  • C++ overloading virtual = operator

    - by taz
    Hello, here is the code for my question: class ICommon { public: virtual ICommon& operator=(const ICommon & p)const=0; }; class CSpecial : public ICommon { public: CSpecial& operator=(const CSpecial & cs) { //custom operations return *this; } }; CSpecial obj; Basically: I want the interface ICommon to force it's descendants to implement = operator but don't want to have any typecasts in the implementation. The compiler says "can't instantiate an abstract class. Any help/advice will be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Operator Overloading with C# Extension Methods

    - by Blinky
    I'm attempting to use extension methods to add an operater overload to the C# StringBuilder class. Specifically, given StringBuilder sb, I'd like sb += "text" to become equivalent to sb.Append("text"); Here's the syntax for creating an extension method for StringBuilder: public static class sbExtensions { public static StringBuilder blah(this StringBuilder sb) { return sb; } } It successfully adds the "blah" extension method to the StringBuilder. Unfortunately, operator overloading does not seem to work: public static class sbExtensions { public static StringBuilder operator +(this StringBuilder sb, string s) { return sb.Append(s); } } Among other issues, the keyword 'this' is not allowed in this context. Are adding operator overloads via extension methods possible? If so, what's the proper way to go about it?

    Read the article

  • C# implicit conversions and == operator

    - by Arnis L.
    Some code for context: class a { } class b { public a a{get;set;} public static implicit operator a(b b) { return b.a; } } a a=null; b b=null; a = b; //compiler: cannot apply operator '==' to operands of type tralala... bool c = a == b; Is it possible to use == operator on different type instances, where one can implicitly convert to another? What did i miss? Edit: If types must be the same calling ==, then why int a=1; double b=1; bool c=a==b; works?

    Read the article

  • How do I write an overload operator where both arguments are interface

    - by Eric Girard
    I'm using interface for most of my stuff. I can't find a way to create an overload operator + that would allow me to perform an addition on any objects implementing the IPoint interface Code interface IPoint { double X { get; set; } double Y { get; set; } } class Point : IPoint { double X { get; set; } double Y { get; set; } //How and where do I create this operator/extension ??? public static IPoint operator + (IPoint a,IPoint b) { return Add(a,b); } public static IPoint Add(IPoint a,IPoint b) { return new Point { X = a.X + b.X, Y = a.Y + b.Y }; } } //Dumb use case : public class Test { IPoint _currentLocation; public Test(IPoint initialLocation) { _currentLocation = intialLocation } public MoveOf(IPoint movement) { _currentLocation = _currentLocation + intialLocation; //Much cleaner/user-friendly than _currentLocation = Point.Add(_currentLocation,intialLocation); } }

    Read the article

  • Operator Overloading for Queue C++

    - by Josh
    I was trying to use the overload operator method to copy the entries of one queue into another, but I am going wrong with my function. I don't know how else to access the values of the queue "original" any other way than what I have below: struct Node { int item; Node* next; }; class Queue { public: [...] //Extra code here void operator = (const Queue &original); protected: Node *front, *end; } void Queue::operator=(const Queue &original) { //THIS IS WHERE IM GOING WRONG while(original.front->next != NULL) { front->item = original.front->item; front->next = new Node; front = front->next; original.front = original.front->next; } }

    Read the article

  • C++ operator overloading doubt

    - by avd
    I have a code base, in which for Matrix class, these two definitions are there for () operator: template <class T> T& Matrix<T>::operator() (unsigned row, unsigned col) { ...... } template <class T> T Matrix<T>::operator() (unsigned row, unsigned col) const { ...... } One thing I understand is that the second one does not return the reference but what does const mean in the second declaration. Also which function is called when I do say mat(i,j)

    Read the article

  • signature output operator overload

    - by coubeatczech
    hi, do you know, how to write signature of a function or method for operator<< for template class in C++? I want something like: template <class A class MyClass{ public: friend ostream & operator<<(ostream & os, MyClass<A mc); } ostream & operator<<(ostream & os, MyClass<A mc){ // some code return os; } But this just won't compile. Do anyone know, how to write it correctly?

    Read the article

  • Overloading assignment operator in C#

    - by Carson Myers
    I know the = operator can't be overloaded, but there must be a way to do what I want here: I'm just creating classes to represent quantitative units, since I'm doing a bit of physics. Apparently I can't just inherit from a primitive, but I want my classes to behave exactly like primitives -- I just want them typed differently. So I'd be able to go, Velocity ms = 0; ms = 17.4; ms += 9.8; etc. I'm not sure how to do this. I figured I'd just write some classes like so: class Power { private Double Value { get; set; } //operator overloads for +, -, /, *, =, etc } But apparently I can't overload the assignment operator. Is there any way I can get this behavior?

    Read the article

  • C++ operator[] syntax.

    - by Lanissum
    Just a quick syntax question. I'm writing a map class (for school). If I define the following operator overload: template<typename Key, typename Val> class Map {... Val* operator[](Key k); What happens when a user writes: Map<int,int> myMap; map[10] = 3; Doing something like that will only overwrite a temporary copy of the [null] pointer at Key k. Is it even possible to do: map[10] = 3; printf("%i\n", map[10]); with the same operator overload?

    Read the article

  • does overload operator-> a compile time action?

    - by Brent
    when I tried to compile the code: struct S { void func2() {} }; class O { public: inline S* operator->() const; private: S* ses; }; inline S* O::operator->() const { return ses; } int main() { O object; object->func(); return 0; } there is a compile error reported: D:\code>g++ operatorp.cpp -S -o operatorp.exe operatorp.cpp: In function `int main()': operatorp.cpp:27: error: 'struct S' has no member named 'func' it seems that invoke the overloaded function of "operator-" is done during compile time? I'd add "-S" option for compile only.

    Read the article

  • Problem using delete[] (Heap corruption) when implementing operator+= (C++)

    - by Darel
    I've been trying to figure this out for hours now, and I'm at my wit's end. I would surely appreciate it if someone could tell me when I'm doing wrong. I have written a simple class to emulate basic functionality of strings. The class's members include a character pointer data (which points to a dynamically created char array) and an integer strSize (which holds the length of the string, sans terminator.) Since I'm using new and delete, I've implemented the copy constructor and destructor. My problem occurs when I try to implement the operator+=. The LHS object builds the new string correctly - I can even print it using cout - but the problem comes when I try to deallocate the data pointer in the destructor: I get a "Heap Corruption Detected after normal block" at the memory address pointed to by the data array the destructor is trying to deallocate. Here's my complete class and test program: #include <iostream> using namespace std; // Class to emulate string class Str { public: // Default constructor Str(): data(0), strSize(0) { } // Constructor from string literal Str(const char* cp) { data = new char[strlen(cp) + 1]; char *p = data; const char* q = cp; while (*q) *p++ = *q++; *p = '\0'; strSize = strlen(cp); } Str& operator+=(const Str& rhs) { // create new dynamic memory to hold concatenated string char* str = new char[strSize + rhs.strSize + 1]; char* p = str; // new data char* i = data; // old data const char* q = rhs.data; // data to append // append old string to new string in new dynamic memory while (*p++ = *i++) ; p--; while (*p++ = *q++) ; *p = '\0'; // assign new values to data and strSize delete[] data; data = str; strSize += rhs.strSize; return *this; } // Copy constructor Str(const Str& s) { data = new char[s.strSize + 1]; char *p = data; char *q = s.data; while (*q) *p++ = *q++; *p = '\0'; strSize = s.strSize; } // destructor ~Str() { delete[] data; } const char& operator[](int i) const { return data[i]; } int size() const { return strSize; } private: char *data; int strSize; }; ostream& operator<<(ostream& os, const Str& s) { for (int i = 0; i != s.size(); ++i) os << s[i]; return os; } // Test constructor, copy constructor, and += operator int main() { Str s = "hello"; // destructor for s works ok Str x = s; // destructor for x works ok s += "world!"; // destructor for s gives error cout << s << endl; cout << x << endl; return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Binary operator overloading on a templated class (C++)

    - by GRB
    Hi all, I was recently trying to gauge my operator overloading/template abilities and as a small test, created the Container class below. While this code compiles fine and works correctly under MSVC 2008 (displays 11), both MinGW/GCC and Comeau choke on the operator+ overload. As I trust them more than MSVC, I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong. Here is the code: #include <iostream> using namespace std; template <typename T> class Container { friend Container<T> operator+ <> (Container<T>& lhs, Container<T>& rhs); public: void setobj(T ob); T getobj(); private: T obj; }; template <typename T> void Container<T>::setobj(T ob) { obj = ob; } template <typename T> T Container<T>::getobj() { return obj; } template <typename T> Container<T> operator+ <> (Container<T>& lhs, Container<T>& rhs) { Container<T> temp; temp.obj = lhs.obj + rhs.obj; return temp; } int main() { Container<int> a, b; a.setobj(5); b.setobj(6); Container<int> c = a + b; cout << c.getobj() << endl; return 0; } This is the error Comeau gives: Comeau C/C++ 4.3.10.1 (Oct 6 2008 11:28:09) for ONLINE_EVALUATION_BETA2 Copyright 1988-2008 Comeau Computing. All rights reserved. MODE:strict errors C++ C++0x_extensions "ComeauTest.c", line 27: error: an explicit template argument list is not allowed on this declaration Container<T> operator+ <> (Container<T>& lhs, Container<T>& rhs) ^ 1 error detected in the compilation of "ComeauTest.c". I'm having a hard time trying to get Comeau/MingGW to play ball, so that's where I turn to you guys. It's been a long time since my brain has melted this much under the weight of C++ syntax, so I feel a little embarrassed ;). Thanks in advance. EDIT: Eliminated an (irrelevant) lvalue error listed in initial Comeau dump.

    Read the article

  • Java == operator. "Invalid assignment operator"

    - by Tom
    Hi, I was trying to write a simple method boolean validate(MyObject o) { return o.getPropertyA() == null && o.getPropertyB()==null; } And got a strange error on the == null part. Maybe my Java is rusty after a season in PLSQL. Consider this: Integer i = 4; i ==null; //compile error: Syntax error on token ==. Invalid assignment operator. Integer i2 = 4; if (i==null); //No problem How can this be ? Any explanation ? Im using jdk160_05.

    Read the article

  • Const operator overloading problems in C++

    - by steigers
    Hello everybody, I'm having trouble with overloading operator() with a const version: #include <iostream> #include <vector> using namespace std; class Matrix { public: Matrix(int m, int n) { vector<double> tmp(m, 0.0); data.resize(n, tmp); } ~Matrix() { } const double & operator()(int ii, int jj) const { cout << " - const-version was called - "; return data[ii][jj]; } double & operator()(int ii, int jj) { cout << " - NONconst-version was called - "; if (ii!=1) { throw "Error: you may only alter the first row of the matrix."; } return data[ii][jj]; } protected: vector< vector<double> > data; }; int main() { try { Matrix A(10,10); A(1,1) = 8.8; cout << "A(1,1)=" << A(1,1) << endl; cout << "A(2,2)=" << A(2,2) << endl; double tmp = A(3,3); } catch (const char* c) { cout << c << endl; } } This gives me the following output: NONconst-version was called - - NONconst-version was called - A(1,1)=8.8 NONconst-version was called - Error: you may only alter the first row of the matrix. How can I achieve that C++ call the const-version of operator()? I am using GCC 4.4.0. Thanks for your help! Sebastian

    Read the article

  • C# what does the == operator do in detail?

    - by clamp
    in c# what does exactly happen in the background when you do a comparison with the "==" operator on two objects? does it just compare the addresses? or does it something like Equals() or CompareTo() ? PS: what about the "==" operator in java? does it behave the same?

    Read the article

  • Overload dereference operator

    - by zilgo
    I'm trying to overload the dereference operator, but compiling the following code results in the error 'initializing' : cannot convert from 'X' to 'int': struct X { void f() {} int operator*() const { return 5; } }; int main() { X* x = new X; int t = *x; delete x; return -898; } What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • JavaScript: using constructor without operator 'new'

    - by GetFree
    Please help me to understand why the following code works: <script> var re = RegExp('\\ba\\b') ; alert(re.test('a')) ; alert(re.test('ab')) ; </script> In the first line there is no new operator. As far as I know, a contructor in JavaScript is a function that initialize objects created by the operator new and they are not meant to return anything.

    Read the article

  • Assignment operator that calls a constructor is broken

    - by Delan Azabani
    I've implemented some of the changes suggested in this question, and (thanks very much) it works quite well, however... in the process I've seemed to break the post-declaration assignment operator. With the following code: #include <cstdio> #include "ucpp" main() { ustring a = "test"; ustring b = "ing"; ustring c = "- -"; ustring d = "cafe\xcc\x81"; printf("%s\n", (a + b + c[1] + d).encode()); } I get a nice "testing cafe´" message. However, if I modify the code slightly so that the const char * conversion is done separately, post-declaration: #include <cstdio> #include "ucpp" main() { ustring a = "test"; ustring b = "ing"; ustring c = "- -"; ustring d; d = "cafe\xcc\x81"; printf("%s\n", (a + b + c[1] + d).encode()); } the ustring named d becomes blank, and all that is output is "testing ". My new code has three constructors, one void (which is probably the one being incorrectly used, and is used in the operator+ function), one that takes a const ustring &, and one that takes a const char *. The following is my new library code: #include <cstdlib> #include <cstring> class ustring { int * values; long len; public: long length() { return len; } ustring() { len = 0; values = (int *) malloc(0); } ustring(const ustring &input) { len = input.len; values = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int) * len); for (long i = 0; i < len; i++) values[i] = input.values[i]; } ustring operator=(ustring input) { ustring result(input); return result; } ustring(const char * input) { values = (int *) malloc(0); long s = 0; // s = number of parsed chars int a, b, c, d, contNeed = 0, cont = 0; for (long i = 0; input[i]; i++) if (input[i] < 0x80) { // ASCII, direct copy (00-7f) values = (int *) realloc(values, sizeof(int) * ++s); values[s - 1] = input[i]; } else if (input[i] < 0xc0) { // this is a continuation (80-bf) if (cont == contNeed) { // no need for continuation, use U+fffd values = (int *) realloc(values, sizeof(int) * ++s); values[s - 1] = 0xfffd; } cont = cont + 1; values[s - 1] = values[s - 1] | ((input[i] & 0x3f) << ((contNeed - cont) * 6)); if (cont == contNeed) cont = contNeed = 0; } else if (input[i] < 0xc2) { // invalid byte, use U+fffd (c0-c1) values = (int *) realloc(values, sizeof(int) * ++s); values[s - 1] = 0xfffd; } else if (input[i] < 0xe0) { // start of 2-byte sequence (c2-df) contNeed = 1; values = (int *) realloc(values, sizeof(int) * ++s); values[s - 1] = (input[i] & 0x1f) << 6; } else if (input[i] < 0xf0) { // start of 3-byte sequence (e0-ef) contNeed = 2; values = (int *) realloc(values, sizeof(int) * ++s); values[s - 1] = (input[i] & 0x0f) << 12; } else if (input[i] < 0xf5) { // start of 4-byte sequence (f0-f4) contNeed = 3; values = (int *) realloc(values, sizeof(int) * ++s); values[s - 1] = (input[i] & 0x07) << 18; } else { // restricted or invalid (f5-ff) values = (int *) realloc(values, sizeof(int) * ++s); values[s - 1] = 0xfffd; } len = s; } ustring operator=(const char * input) { ustring result(input); return result; } ustring operator+(ustring input) { ustring result; result.len = len + input.len; result.values = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int) * result.len); for (long i = 0; i < len; i++) result.values[i] = values[i]; for (long i = 0; i < input.len; i++) result.values[i + len] = input.values[i]; return result; } ustring operator[](long index) { ustring result; result.len = 1; result.values = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int)); result.values[0] = values[index]; return result; } char * encode() { char * r = (char *) malloc(0); long s = 0; for (long i = 0; i < len; i++) { if (values[i] < 0x80) r = (char *) realloc(r, s + 1), r[s + 0] = char(values[i]), s += 1; else if (values[i] < 0x800) r = (char *) realloc(r, s + 2), r[s + 0] = char(values[i] >> 6 | 0x60), r[s + 1] = char(values[i] & 0x3f | 0x80), s += 2; else if (values[i] < 0x10000) r = (char *) realloc(r, s + 3), r[s + 0] = char(values[i] >> 12 | 0xe0), r[s + 1] = char(values[i] >> 6 & 0x3f | 0x80), r[s + 2] = char(values[i] & 0x3f | 0x80), s += 3; else r = (char *) realloc(r, s + 4), r[s + 0] = char(values[i] >> 18 | 0xf0), r[s + 1] = char(values[i] >> 12 & 0x3f | 0x80), r[s + 2] = char(values[i] >> 6 & 0x3f | 0x80), r[s + 3] = char(values[i] & 0x3f | 0x80), s += 4; } return r; } };

    Read the article

  • operator overloading

    - by cpp_Beginner
    Hi, Could anybody tell me the difference between operator overloading using the friend keyword and as a member function inside a class? also what is the difference incase of any unary operator overloading i.e., as a friend and as a member function

    Read the article

  • Negate the null-coalescing operator

    - by jhunter
    I have a bunch of strings I need to use .Trim() on, but they can be null. It would be much more concise if I could do something like: string endString = startString !?? startString.Trim(); Basically return the part on the right if the part on the left is NOT null, otherwise just return the null value. I just ended up using the ternary operator, but is there anyway to use the null-coalescing operator for this purpose?

    Read the article

  • behaviour of the implicit copy constructor / assignment operator

    - by Tobias Langner
    Hello, I have a question regarding the C++ Standard. Suppose you have a base class with user defined copy constructor and assignment operator. The derived class uses the implicit one generated by the compiler. Does copying / assignment of the derived class call the user defined copy constructor / assignment operator? Or do you need to implement user defined versions that call the base class? Thank you for your help.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >