Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!dkuug!resam!andrew
From: andrew@resam.dk (Leif Andrew Rump)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: C++, Bjarne stroustrup, #define, evaluation order, ...
Message-ID: <1991Jun24.124857.29587@resam.dk>
Date: 24 Jun 91 12:48:57 GMT
Organization: RESAM Project Office, SAS, CPHML-V
Lines: 85

I've got my hands on Borland C++ (2.0) and I love it (not Borland, but
C++ - well ok bc is also really nice :-)  ). I've been reading some books
to really get the spirit and I've stumpled into some things that I don't
like and I also have some questions:

In "The C++ Programming Language" by Bjarne Stroustrup (December 1986,
it's not the updated C++ version (2.0 or 2.1)) he states on page 87:

	a*(b/c) could well be calculated as (a*b)/c

Is this (still) the case? I tried the following:

	int	a = 16000;
	int	b = 10;
	int	c = 5;

on bc a*(b/c) worked as expected and gave 32000 and (a*b)/c
gave (0x27100 / 5 -> 0x7100 / 5): 5785 i.e. overflow loss.

I was a bit surprised when this didn't compile:
	for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
	...
	for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
Instead it is:
	for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
	...
	for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)
hmmm! I know that i is not in a "block" but ...

On page 131 he states:

	Here are some plausible macros:
		#define	Case	break; case
		#define	nl	<< "\n"
		#define	forever	for (;;)
		...
	Here are some completely unnecessary macros:
		#define	PI	3.141593
		#define	BEGIN	{
		#define	END	}
Should BEGIN & END be enumerated types or what is wrong with them?
(NOTE: I don't use them even though I'm a Turbo Pascal programmer,
but I do something similar as described below).

I've brought the following from TP5.5 (and define it in andrew.h):
	#define	constructor
	#define	destructor	~

This way I can write a class like this:
	class object
	{
	  name_t	name;

	public :
	  constructor object(name_t name)
	  {
	    object::name = new char[strlen(name) + 1];

	    strcpy(object::name, name);
	  }
	  ...
	  destructor object(void)
	  {
	    delete name;
	  }
	}

Does all C++-compilers allow the ~ to be separated from the class name,
like: ~ object(void) as it is expanded above. 

Also I overloaded: hex, oct & dec with hex(int, len = 0), ... like the
old iostream. Why was they removed.

Any comments?

Leif Andrew Rump, AmbraSoft A/S, Stroedamvej 50, DK-2100 Copenhagen OE, Denmark
UUCP: andrew@ambra.dk, phone: +45 39 27 11 77                /
Currently at Scandinavian Airline Systems                =======/
UUCP: andrew@resam.dk, phone: +45 32 32 51 54                \
SAS, RESAM Project Office, CPHML-V, P.O.BOX 150, DK-2770 Kastrup, Denmark

                If it's broke, fix it (The MS-DOS way)
            If it aint broke, don't touch it (The Unix way)
	If we can't fix it, it ain't broke (Maintainer's Motto)
             If you can't fix it, fuck it (The U-boat way)