New to C++

[Jorgen Grahn]

It strikes me as a common sense rule to avoid confusing callers.

But are people confused by function overloading?

I know some tools are, and I assume it's confusing to C programmers
.... but personally I don't assume functions have anything in common
just because part of the signature is the same.

One of which is all overloads have the same semantics. Can cite a
counterexample?

The smoke() example above is one -- even if it's a bit artificial.

In the standard library, I cannot easily. But it's the /standard
library/ -- it doesn't deal with a wide range of unrelated real-world
objects like application code would. And it's more polished.

/Jorgen

 

[Jorgen Grahn]

So you are just bashing the C++ standard, rather than the usage of the
std:: prefix. Sorry if I can't take you seriously.

Since the subject is "new to C++", I have to step in and agree.
Virtually everyone is happy enough with the C++ standard library to
use and rely on it.

/Jorgen

 

[woodbrian77]

Since the subject is "new to C++", I have to step in and agree.

Virtually everyone is happy enough with the C++ standard library to

use and rely on it.

I use some of it, but avoid using std::map due to the
interface. When possible I use a boost intrusive set or rbtree.

http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_52_0/doc/html/intrusive/set_multiset.html


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

 

[88888 Dihedral]

在 2013å¹´1月20日星期日UTC+8上åˆ2æ—¶08分24秒，Jorgen Grahn写é“：

Since the subject is "new to C++", I have to step in and agree.

Virtually everyone is happy enough with the C++ standard library to

use and rely on it.



/Jorgen



--

// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .

\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

Can I use the #define lib1 std:.....
in C++ to simplify typing ?