a = b = new c?

Started by
36 comments, last by Paradigm Shifter 10 years, 9 months ago

[...]

Yep that's why i'm doing it

As a pedagogical exercise it's an interesting question, but don't use it. If you have to ask on a forum what it does the next person that sees your code (or yourself in a few months) might not know, either. Not worth it, just to save 1 line of code.

Advertisement

As a pedagogical exercise it's an interesting question, but don't use it. If you have to ask on a forum what it does the next person that sees your code (or yourself in a few months) might not know, either. Not worth it, just to save 1 line of code.

Exactly. This will not make the code run faster. It even won't make the code more readable (quite the opposite), so why bother?

I personaly would definitely put the a = b part on a separate row and maybe also add a short comment why am I requesting another copy of the pointer (or use such a name that would suggest it clearly).

What about when you're doing something like this:


ShaderParameter* ParameterManager::CreateFloat(const std::string& Name)
{
      ShaderParameter* pParam = mParameters[Name];


     if (!pParam)
     {
          mParameters[Name] = pParam = new FloatParameter;
     }


     return pParam;
}
"Spending your life waiting for the messiah to come save the world is like waiting around for the straight piece to come in Tetris...even if it comes, by that time you've accumulated a mountain of shit so high that you're fucked no matter what you do. "

What about when you're doing something like this:


ShaderParameter* ParameterManager::CreateFloat(const std::string& Name)
{
      ShaderParameter* pParam = mParameters[Name];


     if (!pParam)
     {
          mParameters[Name] = pParam = new FloatParameter;
     }


     return pParam;
}

What are you gaining over just having two separate assignment expressions?


pParam = new FloatParameter;
mParameters[Name] = pParam;

Trying to be clever when it comes to coding is rarely a benefit over being clear. The difference is purely in the information you convey to the programmer; the compiler couldn't care less. Your code does not have to be clear because it benefits the compiler, it has to be clear because YOU, the programmer, has to read the code.

Well it's not an attempt at optimization i assure you. Also, I didn't realize it was that unclear to read...

"Spending your life waiting for the messiah to come save the world is like waiting around for the straight piece to come in Tetris...even if it comes, by that time you've accumulated a mountain of shit so high that you're fucked no matter what you do. "

Also, I didn't realize it was that unclear to read...

Then why did you create this thread? ;-)

You weren't sure how it works, that's IMHO a good proof that it isn't clear to read (at least for you and as it's your code...).

Also, I didn't realize it was that unclear to read...

Then why did you create this thread? ;-)

You weren't sure how it works, that's IMHO a good proof that it isn't clear to read (at least for you and as it's your code...).

Yes but that's like saying i shouldn't use smart pointers because they're not readable for me since i don't know how they work.. I get what you guys are saying about readability but i just thought this was a simple assignment operation that was common knowledge for non beginners (unlike me)

"Spending your life waiting for the messiah to come save the world is like waiting around for the straight piece to come in Tetris...even if it comes, by that time you've accumulated a mountain of shit so high that you're fucked no matter what you do. "

There's also the type casting taking place:


T a = b = (T)new c();
mParameters[Name] = pParam = (ShaderParameter)new FloatParameter;

...or however it should be done.

I think it would be clearer to have the cast or temporary identified on a separate line.

a = b = new c creates (allocates) one object of type c, then assigns the pointer to b, and then assigns the same pointer to a.

Careful, that isn't actually true.

a will point to b, while b will point to c. The fact that b currently points to c wont hold true if b is reassigned.

... I think I said that poorly.

EDIT: ------------------------------------------------------ IGNORE EVERYTHING I SAY IN THIS THREAD!!!! -----------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: Seriously... do it. Took a double dose of stupid pills this afternoon. I'd edit out my comments for the sake of confusion, but thats makes things worse.

a = b = new c creates (allocates) one object of type c, then assigns the pointer to b, and then assigns the same pointer to a.

Careful, that isn't actually true.

a will point to b, while b will point to c. The fact that b currently points to c wont hold true if b is reassigned.

... I think I said that poorly.

http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=6774974

void hurrrrrrrr() {__asm sub [ebp+4],5;}

There are ten kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement