Home » Blog » Tags » intermediate

intermediate

Quick Q: Does C++ final imply final in all aspects?

By Adrien Hamelin | Apr 28, 2016 12:47 PM | Tags: intermediate c++11

Quick A: Yes, a final class cannot have its methods overriden.

Recently on SO:

Does C++ final imply final in all aspects?

To quote the draft C++ standard from here [class.virtual/4]:

If a virtual function f in some class B is marked with the virt-specifier final and in a class D derived from B a function D::f overrides B::f, the program is ill-formed.
And here [class/3]:
If a class is marked with the class-virt-specifier final and it appears as a base-type-specifier in a base-clause (Clause [class.derived]), the program is ill-formed.
So, in answer to the question;

 

Does a final class implicitly imply its virtual functions to be final as well? Should it? Please clarify.

So, at least not formally. But attempts to violate either rule will be the same result in both cases; the program is ill-formed and so won't compile. A final class means the class cannot be derived from, so as a consequence of this, its virtual methods cannot be overridden.

 

Should it? Probably not, they are related but they not the same thing. There is also no need formally require the one to imply the other, the effect follows naturally. Any violations have the same result, a failed compile (hopefully with appropriate error messages to distinguish the two).

The Ultimate Question of Programming, Refactoring, and Everything

By Andrey Karpov | Apr 14, 2016 05:25 AM | Tags: refactoring intermediate c++11 bugs book basics advanced

Yes, you've guessed correctly - the answer is "42". In this article you will find 42 recommendations about coding in C++ that can help a programmer avoid a lot of errors, save time and effort.

The Ultimate Question of Programming, Refactoring, and Everything

by Andrey Karpov

From the article:

The scope of my interests − the C/C++ language and the promotion of code analysis methodology. I have been Microsoft MVP in Visual C++ for 5 years. The main aim of my articles and work in general - is to make the code of programs safer and more secure. I'll be really glad if these recommendations help you write better code, and avoid typical errors. Those who write code standards for companies may also find some helpful information here.

Overload 132 is now available

By Adrien Hamelin | Apr 12, 2016 01:59 PM | Tags: intermediate community

ACCU’s Overload journal of April 2016 is out. It contains the following C++ related articles.

Overload 132

From the journal:

The Tao of Scratch
Scratch is an environment designed to help young people learn to code. Patrick Martin walks us through it. by Patrick Martin

Knowledge-Sharing Architects As An Alternative to Coding Architects
Should architects write code? Sergy Ignatchenko explores this controversial subject. by Sergey Ignatchenko

QM Bites: Understand Windows OS Identification Preprocessor Macros
There’s confusion between user-defined and predefined Windows 32/64-bit operating-system identification macros. Matthew Wilson shines light on the issue. by Matthew Wilson

Why Collaboration is Key for QA Teams in an Agile World
Agile processes can have an impact on QA departments. Greg Law considers how they can adapt to survive and even thrive. by Greg Law

How to Diffuse Your Way Out of a Paper Bag
Diffusion models can be used in many areas. Frances Buontempo applies them to paper bag escapology. by Frances Buontempo

Stufftar
How do you quickly transfer data from one machine to another? Ian Bruntlett shows us the bash script he uses. by Ian Bruntlett

QM Bites: looping for-ever
Never-ending loop constructs can confound user and compiler in subtle ways. Matthew Wilson offers advice to maximise portability and transparency.

Using Enum Classes as Bitfields
Scope enums have many advantages over standard enums. Anthony Williams shows how to use them as bitmasks. by Anthony Williams

9.7 Things Every Programmer Really, Really Should Know
Most of us have heard of the twelve step program. Teedy Deigh introduces a 9.7 step plan for programmers.

Quick Q: Is Stephen Lavavej's Mallocator the same in C++11?

By Adrien Hamelin | Apr 12, 2016 11:41 AM | Tags: intermediate c++11

Quick A: No, it has changed.

Recently on SO:

Is Stephen Lavavej's Mallocator the same in C++11?

STL himself has an answer to this question in his STL Features and Implementation techniques talk at CppCon 2014 (Starting at 26'30).

The slides are on github.

I merged the content of slides 28 and 29 below:

#include <stdlib.h> // size_t, malloc, free
#include <new> // bad_alloc, bad_array_new_length
template <class T> struct Mallocator {
  typedef T value_type;
  Mallocator() noexcept { } // default ctor not required
  template <class U> Mallocator(const Mallocator<U>&) noexcept { }
  template <class U> bool operator==(
    const Mallocator<U>&) const noexcept { return true; }
  template <class U> bool operator!=(
    const Mallocator<U>&) const noexcept { return false; }

  T * allocate(const size_t n) const {
      if (n == 0) { return nullptr; }
      if (n > static_cast<size_t>(-1) / sizeof(T)) {
          throw std::bad_array_new_length();
      }
      void * const pv = malloc(n * sizeof(T));
      if (!pv) { throw std::bad_alloc(); }
      return static_cast<T *>(pv);
  }
  void deallocate(T * const p, size_t) const noexcept {
      free(p);
  }
};

Note that it handles correctly the possible overflow in allocate.

Quick Q:Is it possible in C++ to iterate over a std::map with unpacked key and value?

By Adrien Hamelin | Apr 8, 2016 01:05 PM | Tags: intermediate experimental

Quick A: An easy solution is not supported by the standard, it may come later.

Recently on SO:

Is it possible in C++ to do std::map<> “for element : container” iteration with named variables (eg, key and value) instead of .first and .second?

You could write a class template:

template <class K, class T>
struct MapElem {
    K const& key;
    T& value;

    MapElem(std::pair<K const, T>& pair)
        : key(pair.first)
        , value(pair.second)
    { }
};

with the advantage of being able to write key and value but with the disadvantage of having to specify the types:

for ( MapElem<int, std::string> kv : my_map ){
    std::cout << kv.key << " --> " << kv.value;
}

And that won't work if my_map were const either. You'd have to do something like:

template <class K, class T>
struct MapElem {
    K const& key;
    T& value;

    MapElem(std::pair<K const, T>& pair)
        : key(pair.first)
        , value(pair.second)
    { }

    MapElem(const std::pair<K const, std::remove_const_t<T>>& pair)
        : key(pair.first)
        , value(pair.second)
    { }
};

for ( MapElem<int, const std::string> kv : my_map ){
    std::cout << kv.key << " --> " << kv.value;
}

It's a mess. Best thing for now is to just get used to writing .first and .second and hope that the structured bindings proposal passes, which would allow for what you really want:

for (auto&& [key, value] : my_map) {
    std::cout << key << " --> " << value;
}