|
predragzakisevic wrote: That's whats happening when you get a job by your connections and not by an interview.
speak for your self man. I use to work at an IT department with so many people who got the job by connection. There was this guy who use to repair computers and carry his tools in 'tools belt' like electricians. we use to joke how he carry his hammer with him....
Yusuf
Oh didn't you notice, analogous to square roots, they recently introduced rectangular, circular, and diamond roots to determine the size of the corresponding shapes when given the area. Luc Pattyn[^]
|
|
|
|
|
predragzakisevic wrote: That's whats happening when you get a job by your connections and not by an interview
Spot on friend,
In my Previous job some coder didnt know funda of Array
I didnt know how they graduate in university
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, you cheered up my day!
Cheers
You have the thought that modern physics just relay on assumptions, that somehow depends on a smile of a cat, which isn’t there.( Albert Einstein)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collin Jasnoch wrote: for tracking
Yes its a product tracking software indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
You found a Perl programmer
|
|
|
|
|
if (this == null) return;
|
|
|
|
|
Been reading Gary R. Wheeler's code again?
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots.
-- Robert Royall
|
|
|
|
|
That's right out of MFC
void CHandleMap::DeleteTemp()
{
if (this == NULL)
return;
|
|
|
|
|
In C++ that makes sense as this can be NULL in some situations.
|
|
|
|
|
My c++ is obviously rusty, what situations are those?
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots.
-- Robert Royall
|
|
|
|
|
Call a method passing a null object...
In Delphi, the Free method checks that it was called for an object that was really created. It's quite useful, since you can write "MyObject.Free" instead of "if Assigned(MyObject) then MyObject.Free;". A real time saver, and code is so much more readable.
-- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
http://streambolics.flimbase.com
S. L.
|
|
|
|
|
C++ lets you set the this object in the parameters instead of always using the object the method is called on?
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots.
-- Robert Royall
|
|
|
|
|
No, but if you write:
int foo ()
{
string *s = null;
return s->length();
}
the string::length function will be called with this==null. This could be used so that the null string would behave as the empty string.
-- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
http://streambolics.flimbase.com
S. L.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, that makes sense.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots.
-- Robert Royall
|
|
|
|
|
Thereby obscuring the real problem, which is that you have a null object instance you're trying to use. Loads of fun tracking down something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
William has already explained it neatly. Here is another example if you are interested.
class Dummy{
public:
void CheckNull(){
if(!this)
std::cout << "This is NULL!";
}
};
Dummy* dummy = 0;
dummy->CheckNull(); You can see This is NULL message appearing in the above example. Above code is problematic and as per C++ standard, calls on an uninitialized pointer will lead into unexpected results.
dan neely wrote: C++ lets you set the this object in the parameters instead of always using the object the method is called on?
No. AFAIK, compiler compiles the CheckNull() method like
void Dummy_CheckNull(Dummy* this); and the Dummy instance we created will be passed to this method. Your code will work fine if you are not using the this . Any operation on this will fail as it is not initialized.
Hope it is clear now!
|
|
|
|
|
would this be another example?
class NullCall {
public:
char PublicMethod(int x) {
return (char)x; }
};
NullCall::PublicMethod(12);
I.E. using the namespace/scope operator '::' ?
-Adam
|
|
|
|
|
TheScientistIsDead wrote: would this be another example?
I don't think so. Your code produces error " error: cannot call member function ‘char NullCall::PublicMethod(int)’ without object ". You can compile this by making the method as static but you can't use this inside a static method.
|
|
|
|
|
When I saw that line written by one of our 'expert' all over the place;
i=i++;
It made me wonders if the compiler was smart enough to do only the increment or if it was really assigning i to itself and then doing the increment.
modified on Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Kurdy Malloy wrote: It made me wonders if the compiler was smart enough to ...
We can only hope the compiler generates code compatible with the language specification; i++ is a post-increment operator, it increments after the main operation (=) got executed. It isn't a compiler's duty to guess at what the programmer intended, it should do so only when reporting error and warning messages ("Are you missing a ;").
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get
- use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
|
|
|
|
|
It is also its duty to optimize the code if you tell it to, but this case is not optimized (I checked with the Reflector). Not even if i is not used (it should be automatically removed!). i isn't a property so removing an assignment of i to itself has no effect other than making the code faster.
|
|
|
|
|
Make sure the project is set to build for release (actually check the optimize switch is on).
the MS compilers are somewhat lazy when there is the slightest doubt you are going to debug...
Furthermore they always have the ultimate excuse: the JIT compiler will take care of it!
[ADDED]I somehow replied to another version of your message;
also it gets interesting when i happens to be volatile ...
[/ADDED]
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get
- use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
|
|
|
|
|
It was in release mode of course otherwise it's only normal that it wouldn't do any optimizations
Ok didn't think of volatile - well then "any variable or field that is not volatile" can have an assignment to itself removed without any harm (unless you're doing scary reflection tricks..)
But the JIT compiler is a problem.. how can you see what code it produces?
|
|
|
|