Factor, Don't Complicate

re: Factor, Don't Complicate

William — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:05:00 GMT

A general question. My shop is and has been hardcore C++. We have waited for .NET to evolve, and it looks like it has to the point where C++ is a real option. I cannot determine however, if C++ will be a supported language by ASP.NET. ASP.NET suports the notion (like ASP) that source code can be deployed uncompiled. At first invocation the compiler run to make CLR byte codes, etc. I assume this is not a deployment option for C++ in the VS 2005 timeframe. yes/no?

ASP.NET with C++ not anytime soon

stan lippman — Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:35:00 GMT

have you been a practicing paralegal in your spare time? the yes/no response is yes, no C++/CLI is not going to be a codebehind ASP.NET language in the VS 2005 timeframe. speaking with a few more folks with more knowledge of this issue than i have, one of the primary stumbling blocks is the C++ compilaton model. Unless we define a /clr:safe
subset and constrain users to that, they will otherwise need header files, libs, .rc files and the whole shootin' match around at compile time rather than just the assemblies one is building against. we probably don't want to require the installation of the Platform SDK on a web server just to deply your written in C++ ASP.NET page. I realize this response goes beyond yes/no, but hopefully it adds to rather than complicates the response.

re: Factor, Don't Complicate

Norman Diamond — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 06:01:00 GMT

> An initialization of one X object with
> another, such as
> X x1( myT );
> X x2( x1 );
> by default results in the bitwise copy of x2
> with x1 without the explicit invocation of a
> synthesized copy constructor,

I don't see that in either Stroustrop's 3rd edition or in the ISO standard. Where was the reversion to bitwise copying defined?

re: Factor, Don't Complicate

Norman Diamond — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 04:40:00 GMT

I also don't see it in the draft of the C++/CLI standard.

There's a chance I might see it in your book -- since I have the first edition of your book and am not sure if it dates from when copy constructors used to be bitwise. But sorry I didn't check because even if it does say that then surely it's obsolete by now.

re: Factor, Don't Complicate

stan lippman — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 14:59:00 GMT

the primary section to read -- well, study is required -- is section 12.8. 3.1, 3.2, and 12.2 are also to be noted. notice that X must only contain primitive data types for this to hold, making the implicit copy constructor trivial.

my primary activity well i wrote my books was implementing C++ compilers ... the books are a side-effect, not my primary activity.

standards are difficult to parse -- they require what is typically called a `language lawyer' mind -- Andy Koenig or Josee Lajoie, for example, are my icons of the mental clarity necessary for both writing and explicating what is in a language standard.

my writing and speech is not nearly precise enough, and i understand you find fault with its many simplifications ... but i consider that a service.

if you are going to go to the well, you have to expend a bit more work than a regular expression search.

in any case, you need not be sorry. if you are still using the first edition, amazon has quite a number of the 3rd edition really cheap!

Stan Lippman's BLog : Factor, Don't Complicate

Dating — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 02:46:02 GMT

A reader asks the following question, Sender: bv re: A Question about Copy Constructors in C++/CLI Ok, i have a question. What happens if: suppose you want to make a shallow copy. Ex: ClassX obj(somePtr);//internally obj.m_ptr = SomePtr; Now ClassX obj2(obj)

Stan Lippman s BLog Factor Don t Complicate | alternative dating

Stan Lippman s BLog Factor Don t Complicate | alternative dating — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:12:20 GMT

PingBack from http://topalternativedating.info/story.php?id=3975