Is the following acceptable programming practice: class TestA { prote开发者_开发技巧cted: int A; public:
Given a template pass-by-reference conversion/type-cast operator (without const) is possible: class TestA
I\'m been grinding my head against an idea that is simple enough in my head, but I can\'t figure out how to implement in C++.
I have read that a standard conversion can precede or follow a conversion implemented by a conversion operator or a contructor type conversion. On the other hand,
What is the \"operator int\" function below? What does it do? class INT { int a; public: INT(int ix = 0) { a = ix;
I\'m having trouble with overloading operator() with a const version: #include <iostream> #include <vector>
I don\'t know how to phrase the question very well in a short subject line, so let me try a longer explanation.Suppose I have these exception classes:
There\'s simple example: #include <vector> int main() { vector<int> veci; vector<double> vecd;
Why does C++ require that user-defined conversion operator can only be non-static member? Why is it not allowed to use standalone functions as for other unary operators开发者_StackOverflow?
Okay so I have a class that has \'weak typing\' I.E. it can store many different types defined as: #include <string>
加载中,请稍侯......