The standard correctly defines the return type of an assignment operator. Actually, the assignment operation itself doesn’t depend on the return value – that’s why the return type isn’t straightforward to understanding. The return type is important for chaining operations. Consider the following construction: a = b = c;. This should be equal to a …
* and & as type modifiers int i declares an int. int* p declares a pointer to an int. int& r = i declares a reference to an int, and initializes it to refer to i. C++ only. Note that references must be assigned at initialization, therefore int& r; is not possible. Similarly: void foo(int …
Here’s a utility function based on a (now-deleted) comment made by “Tiran” in a weblog discussion @Hophat Abc references in his own answer that will work in both Python 2 and 3. Disclaimer: If you read the the linked discussion, you’ll find that some folks think this is so unsafe that it should never be …
You haven’t defined struct stasher_file by your first definition. What you have defined is an nameless struct type and a variable stasher_file of that type. Since there’s no definition for such type as struct stasher_file in your code, the compiler complains about incomplete type. In order to define struct stasher_file, you should have done it …
Take it this way: int *i means the value to which i points is an integer. char **p means that p is a pointer which is itself a pointer to a char.
In this case the value at the pointer is copied (though this is not necessarily the case as the optimiser may optimise it out). int val = *pPtr; In this case however no copy will take place: int& rVal = *pPtr; The reason no copy takes place is because a reference is not a machine …
C does not prohibit dereferencing the null pointer, it merely makes it undefined behavior. If your environment is such that you’re able to dereference a pointer containing the address 0x0, then you should be able to do so. The C language standard says nothing about what will happen when you do so. (In most environments, …
Static member functions were added into C++ in 1989, in Release 2.0 of the AT&T C++ Language System (pre-standardisation). Prior to that, the static keyword could not be used to declare static member functions, so code authors used workarounds, principally the one you have observed of indirecting a null pointer. In the Selected Readings accompanying …
In The Development of the C Language, Dennis Ritchie explains his reasoning thusly: The second innovation that most clearly distinguishes C from its predecessors is this fuller type structure and especially its expression in the syntax of declarations… given an object of any type, it should be possible to describe a new object that gathers …
the rules regarding Deref and DerefMut were designed specifically to accommodate smart pointers. Because of this, Deref should only be implemented for smart pointers to avoid confusion. — std::ops::Deref I think it’s a bad practice. since I can use my newtype as if it were the underlying type in some situations That’s the problem — …