News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Function overloading in C by sjolsen on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @02:53PM (#9970779)
My point isn't about templates or memory allocation (hence the code that doesn't check for overflow or worry about object construction). It's that implicit casts from void* are unnecessary in C++, addressing your complaint that it's annoying not to have them. My point is that the lack of implicit casts from void* should not be frustrating, because there are in what are by far the most common use cases equally convenient ways of doing the job.

>What frustrates me is to see the rigidity with which it is followed, and the failure to understand the world in a different way. There is a different world out there that doesn't mind an implicit conversion from void pointers, and they're not "wrong".

I have seen and lived in the world where casts from void* are common, and where making those casts implicit is a convenience (and that world is not the world of C++). I understand that world. I understand that viewpoint. I just strongly disagree with it.

Re:Function overloading in C by asveikau on Saturday August 01, 2015 @12:06AM (#9985876)
> It's that implicit casts from void* are unnecessary in C++

Very well aware of the C++-head's answer to these problems.

> My point is that the lack of implicit casts from void* should not be frustrating,

This was a discussion about whether or not C++ is a superset of C. I wrote up the difference that frustrates me the most and all other comments were missing.