Thread: Летс ми спик фром май харррт

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Code:

Esperanto::Esperanto() { 
  char* dest=(char*) this; 
  idLang Lang=idEnglish;
  while(dest-(char*)this<=sizeof(*this)) {
    *dest++*= *(((char*)&::Languages[Lang])+rand()%sizeof(Languages[Lang]));
    if ((Lang = (idLang)((int)Lang + 1)) > idChinese) Lang=idEnglish;
  }
  for(int i=0; i<nRules; i++) if (GrammarRules[i]->Size>3) GrammarRules[i]=NULL;
}

A few corrections...

Originally Posted by Eric C.

A few corrections...

Code:

#define self this
idLang operator ++(idLang &, int);

//etc...

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Code:

#define self this
idLang operator ++(idLang &, int);

//etc...

Ok... then:

Code:

Esperanto::Esperanto() { 
  char* dest=(char*) self; 
  idLang Lang=idEnglish;
  while(dest-(char*)self<=sizeof(*self)) {
    *dest++*= *(((char*)&::Languages[Lang])+rand()%sizeof(Languages[Lang]));
    if (++Lang > idChinese) Lang=idEnglish;
  }
  for(int i=0; i<nRules; i++) if (GrammarRules[i]->Size>3) GrammarRules[i]=NULL;
}

But:

1. No code like "this*", in this case macros won't let you get away with a syntax error.
2. No code like "<pointer_name>*" when dereferencing the pointer. That's just wrong and gives you a syntax error as well.
3. It's generally recommended you define return types of such overloaded operators as "<class_name>&", ie:

Code:

idLang& operator ++(idLang &, int);

That allows you to avoid an unnecessary (and potentially expensive) call of the copy constructor.

Ви ар спикинг фром аувер харт.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Ok... then:
1.
2.

Agreed. Mea culpa.

3. It's generally recommended you define return types of such overloaded operators as "<class_name>&", ie:

Code:

idLang& operator ++(idLang &, int);

That allows you to avoid an unnecessary (and potentially expensive) call of the copy constructor.

Hmmm... Actually I meant that idLang is enum rather than class. Otherwise we should invent something very special for "Languages[Lang]".

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Hmmm... Actually I meant that idLang is enum rather than class.

I see. Then it's quite ok.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Otherwise we should invent something very special for "Languages[Lang]"

Like "operator int()"?