February 2004 - Posts

• Value Type Redux

  I’d like to thank Yves Dolce for responding to Wesner Moise who writes: Sender: Wesner Moise re: Value Type Representation Between the Original and Revised C++ I am not sure that I understand you when you say v.ToString() results in an error, because Read More... Posted Thursday, February 26, 2004 3:12 PM by slippman | 1 Comments

• Value Type Representation Between the Original and Revised C++

  For the work I’ve been engaged in currently in machine translation of the original language design [thing1] to the revised design of the language [thing2], I have been variously making stabs at understanding the possible usages of a managed Value Read More... Posted Thursday, February 26, 2004 9:35 AM by slippman | 7 Comments

• Some Thoughts on Program Efficiency

  Program efficiency at the programmer level is something of a complicated issue – in part because it is contextual. That is, it is hard to say something that holds true in all cases. [This is why having a good profiler is essential.] For example, Read More... Posted Wednesday, February 18, 2004 11:09 AM by slippman | 6 Comments

• C++/CLI revision of the Managed Extension Reference Array Syntax

  The declaration of a managed array object in the original language design was a slightly non-intuitive extension of the standard array declaration in which a __gc keyword was placed between the name of the array object and its possibly comma-filled dimension, Read More... Posted Monday, February 16, 2004 9:56 AM by slippman | 3 Comments

• Supporting Direct Handles to Boxed Value Types

  A reader, Yves Dolce, writes: Related to your last blog entry: The Astonishing S"Literal" String Type I was surprised that sometimes, boxing is conceptually implicit... That any Object method can be called directly without any explicit boxing. And of Read More... Posted Friday, February 13, 2004 11:27 AM by slippman | 3 Comments

• Bringing Existing ISO C++ to C++/CLI and Why We Don't Change L"hi"

  indranil banerjee writes re: Virtual Function Behavior Between ISO C++ and C++/CLI Revisited Thanks for the explanation. Rereading your earlier post and examples, it is quite clear that runtime resolution of virtuals is the same in both CLR and ISO C++. Read More... Posted Thursday, February 12, 2004 2:50 PM by slippman | 0 Comments

• The Astonishing S"Literal" String Type

  One of the astonishing infelicities of the original language design was the unflagged overhead of the seemingly trivial failing of placing an S in front of a string literal targeted to a managed reference object. For example, given the following two System::String Read More... Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2004 10:24 AM by slippman | 1 Comments

• Virtual Function Behavior Between ISO C++ and C++/CLI Revisited

  I seem to have rather badly explained the `virtual function invocation within a constructor issue,’ if one is to judge by the following question posted as a follow-up to my blog entry, for which I apologize: Sender: Indranil Banejree ===================================== Read More... Posted Monday, February 09, 2004 9:01 AM by slippman | 1 Comments

• The Name Return Value Optimization

  I received the following mail the other day in response to my writing that the Visual C++ compiler has [finally!] implemented the name return value optimization (NRVO) in the Visual Studio 2003 release: Sender: James Slaughter I was in the process of Read More... Posted Tuesday, February 03, 2004 9:56 AM by slippman | 3 Comments