• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
jeroenb

Implicit conversion false to null pointer

9 posts in this topic

I recently encountered a piece of code like the following (not saying anything about whether it is good or not):

[source lang="cpp"]class Ptr
{
public:
Ptr(void* ptr = NULL, bool owned= true);
...
}

Ptr ptr(false);[/source]

This seems to compile pretty well, and the false is implicitly converted to a null pointer! In case you give true as argument to this constructor, you get a compile error.

Now my question is: how can you prefend that the bool is converted automatically to a null pointer. I tried an explicit constructor with only one bool argument. But that made it impossible to send NULL as pointer to the first.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does not compile just fine (though it [i]does [/i]compile) with gcc:
[font=courier new,courier,monospace]warning: converting 'false' to pointer type for argument 1 of 'Ptr::Ptr(void*, bool)'[/font]

Strictly speaking, your compiler is correct about doing this conversion. The standard says: (4.5-6) [i]"A prvalue of type bool can be converted to a prvalue of type int, with false becoming zero and true becoming one."[/i] and (4.10) [i]"A null pointer constant is an integral constant expression (5.19) prvalue of integer type that evaluates to zero or a prvalue of type std::nullptr_t. A null pointer constant can be converted to a pointer type"[/i].

This explains why it is legal for [font=courier new,courier,monospace]false[/font], but not for [font=courier new,courier,monospace]true[/font] (the former is a null pointer constant, the latter is not). It's converting a [font=courier new,courier,monospace]bool [/font]constant to an integer constant, which happens to be a null pointer constant, which it converts to a (null) pointer. Edited by samoth
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That it is valid, I agree on. But now I would like to prevend that this constructor is called by accident with only a bool argument. Adding a constructor [i]explicit Ptr(bool owned) [/i]again makes it impossible to call the constructor with the NULL value, as that will result in an ambiguous call to either constructor. Any idea's?

ps. I am compiling with the microsoft compiler, which does not produce by default a warning for this.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[url="http://ideone.com/qiHP9"]http://ideone.com/qiHP9[/url]
Default arguments in constructors should almost always be implemented as different constructors along with associating initialization lists.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='ApEk' timestamp='1340307263' post='4951468']
[url="http://ideone.com/qiHP9"]http://ideone.com/qiHP9[/url]
Default arguments in constructors should almost always be implemented as different constructors along with associating initialization lists.
[/quote]

That makes sense, [i]if[/i] your compiler supports delegating constructors. VC10/11 do not. Otherwise, you are duplicating a lot of code, or using initializer private methods.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you remove the default parameter? That would be easiest.

As for delegating constructors, it isn't hard for your constructors to run along the lines:

[code]
MyObject::MyObject()
{
ConstructInternal( NULL, false, true);
}
MyObject::MyObject(Something* ptr )
{
ConstructInternal( ptr, false, true);
}
MyObject::MyObject(Something* ptr, bool owned )
{
ConstructInternal( ptr, false, owned);
}
MyObject::MyObject(bool aFlag)
{
ConstructInternal( NULL, aFlag, true);
}
...
[/code]We do this all the time in our game code for exactly the reason you describe in your post.

True it is not as pretty as default parameters, but it does help resolve the problem of implicit conversions.


As the project grows and a new parameter becomes needed we just add another signature so we don't break existing code. It solves so many headaches when sharing code between multiple consoles.

Edit: as a side note, try to avoid plain bool as a flag. Use an enum and specifically state what the thing is or is not. Today there are two choices, but tomorrow you may need a third. Edited by frob
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='frob' timestamp='1340320870' post='4951536']Edit: as a side note, try to avoid plain bool as a flag. Use an enum and specifically state what the thing is or is not. Today there are two choices, but tomorrow you may need a third.
[/quote]
Plus, new Object( MakeBobYourUncle.True ) ; is much less ambiguous than new Object( true ) ; Edited by Narf the Mouse
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frob, thats a good idea, and indeed is much clearer. Thanks for the suggestions all, this helps a lot!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='jeroenb' timestamp='1340269374' post='4951269']
I recently encountered a piece of code like the following (not saying anything about whether it is good or not):

[source lang="cpp"]class Ptr
{
public:
Ptr(void* ptr = NULL, bool owned= true);
...
}

Ptr ptr(false);[/source]
[/quote]

if you define false as !true this will no longer compile.

[CODE]
#define false !true
[/CODE]
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0