July 2004 - Posts

• The Value of a Value Class

  A reader questions the nature of the value type when he writes, Sender: Slawomir Lisznianski ===================================== 1) Lack of support for SMFs makes value classes unnatural to use. An example in the C++/CLI spec at page 33 is incorrect, Read More... Posted Friday, July 23, 2004 12:33 PM by slippman | 8 Comments

• String Literal Conversion to String: Is It a Disaster?

  A reader asks, Sender: Jack re: String Literals are now a Trivial Conversion to String Won't it break most of existing libraries who will try to port to C++/CLI? One override for String^ will break a lot of user code and make calls for the overriden function Read More... Posted Friday, July 23, 2004 8:49 AM by slippman | 1 Comments

• String Literal Conversion to String: Is It a Disaster?

  A reader asks, Sender: Jack re: String Literals are now a Trivial Conversion to String Won't it break most of existing libraries who will try to port to C++/CLI? One override for String^ will break a lot of user code and make calls for the overriden function Read More... Posted Friday, July 23, 2004 8:33 AM by slippman | 0 Comments

• String Literals are now a Trivial Conversion to String

  There was a recent internal thread on the resolution of the following set of overloaded member functions of a reference class R. It represents a change in the earlier definition of C++/CLI, and a difference in type behavior that I reported in an earlier Read More... Posted Monday, July 19, 2004 12:31 PM by slippman | 4 Comments