Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[olemars]

I think most C/C++ compilers convert string literals to char[]s (or char*'s, same thing really), making it not an object.
There may be a way to force it though, something like

Code: [Select]

(new string("foo")).equals(var)not sure if that's proper C++,

String literals are constants yes, not objects.
Using std::string correct c++ code would be

Code: [Select]

var == "foo" // order irrelevantor

Code: [Select]

var.compare("foo") == 0or

Code: [Select]

string("foo").compare(var) == 0
As long as var is a string object and not a pointer to a string object it will never be NULL, it will at worst be an empty string.

I've been focusing on plain C for now.

Why?

[Blank Expression]

That's pretty clever, actually...any idea if C++ allows a method to be used on a constant in that fashion?  i.e. "foo".equals(someString)?

No, it doesn't support it; when you use a language intended for developers who still exhibit prokaryotic traits you pass up most of the niceties of modern programming.

You can hack around it by doing things that are in fact harder to read than the standard ways of doing a comparison. They're also less efficient than a standard comparison--the reason it's not a perf hit in C# or Java is because string literals in either language are interned objects that don't have to be created at invocation. C++, being a stupid language (in the literal sense), has no such concept. (EDIT: SolarShado's use of 'new' above is not a good idea--it leads to memory leaks. It should be stack allocated instead.)

The obvious and correct answer is to not use stone knives (C++ or, if you're especially masochistic, C) when you have a Sawzall (tools developed in the last twenty years--pick one).

I think most C/C++ compilers convert string literals to char[]s (or char*'s, same thing really), making it not an object.

A string literal in C++ is of type const char[], IIRC (or, in other words, const char* and the literal includes a \0 on the end).

[Siquo]

developers who still exhibit prokaryotic traits

Blacken, is that you again?!

[qwertyuiopas]

You can negate the performance hit by storing it in a static variable, so that it only needs to be initialized once. Alternatively a well-named inline function that can properly handle a null could work. Or the simple (var != null && var.compare("foo") == 0).

None of those would be as clean as some other languages, though.

[kg333]

That's pretty clever, actually...any idea if C++ allows a method to be used on a constant in that fashion?  i.e. "foo".equals(someString)?

No, it doesn't support it; when you use a language intended for developers who still exhibit prokaryotic traits you pass up most of the niceties of modern programming.

You can hack around it by doing things that are in fact harder to read than the standard ways of doing a comparison. They're also less efficient than a standard comparison--the reason it's not a perf hit in C# or Java is because string literals in either language are interned objects that don't have to be created at invocation. C++, being a stupid language (in the literal sense), has no such concept. (EDIT: SolarShado's use of 'new' above is not a good idea--it leads to memory leaks. It should be stack allocated instead.)

The obvious and correct answer is to not use stone knives (C++ or, if you're especially masochistic, C) when you have a Sawzall (tools developed in the last twenty years--pick one).

Hehe, I have a friend a lot like you...despises programming in anything less abstract than Java.  Sending him snippets of code involving C/C++ pointers and manually allocated memory is quite amusing.  BTW, kudos for using "prokaryotic", that's one of the more creative insults I've heard thrown my way.  However, real masochists use assembly.   

I've been focusing on plain C for now.

Why?

Not sure why the other guy uses it, but it's still the language of choice for microprocessor programming, unless you feel like going all out hand-optimizing your code in assembly.

KG

[olemars]

Maybe I should start a FORTRAN thread just to bother programming language crusaders.

[qwertyuiopas]

Nah, just jump straight to Brainfuck, Malbolge, and Intercal. Any language that was designed to be productive is too user-friendly to really bother people.

[Nadaka]

Nah, just jump straight to Brainfuck, Malbolge, and Intercal. Any language that was designed to be productive is too user-friendly to really bother people.

Hello world in Brainfuck:
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>++.>+.+++++++..+++.>++.<<+++++++++++++++.>.+++.------.--------.>+.>.

[Cecilff2]

HAI
CAN HAS STDIO?
VISIBLE "HAI WORLD!"
KTHXBYE