Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
C and C++ also support the pointer to void type (specified as void *), but this is an unrelated notion. Variables of this type are pointers to data of an unspecified type, so in this context (but not the others) void * acts roughly like a universal or top type .
For example, both C++ and C# allow programs to define operators to convert a value from one type to another with well-defined semantics. When a C++ compiler encounters such a conversion, it treats the operation just like a function call. In contrast, converting a value to the C type void* is an unsafe operation that is invisible to the compiler.
In computer programming, the return type (or result type) defines and constrains the data type of the value returned from a subroutine or method. [1] In many programming languages (especially statically-typed programming languages such as C, C++, Java) the return type must be explicitly specified when declaring a function.
Some features of C++ that promote more type-safe code: The new operator returns a pointer of type based on operand, whereas malloc returns a void pointer. C++ code can use virtual functions and templates to achieve polymorphism without void pointers. Safer casting operators, such as dynamic cast that performs run-time type checking.
An early attempt to guarantee void safety was the design of the Self programming language.. The Eiffel language is void-safe according to its ISO-ECMA standard; the void-safety mechanism is implemented in EiffelStudio starting with version 6.1 and using a modern syntax starting with version 6.4.
In modern standard C++, a string literal such as "hello" still denotes a NUL-terminated array of characters. [1] Using C++ classes to implement a string type offers several benefits of automated memory management and a reduced risk of out-of-bounds accesses, [2] and more intuitive syntax for string comparison and concatenation. Therefore, it ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
It should be possible to define a new operation for (some) classes of an object structure without changing the classes. When new operations are needed frequently and the object structure consists of many unrelated classes, it's inflexible to add new subclasses each time a new operation is required because "[..] distributing all these operations across the various node classes leads to a system ...