Interesting Stuff

In our latest installment of “why not to program in C++,” let’s take a look at a simple class hierarchy:

class Duck {
 public:
  Duck() {
    InitializeMigratoryRoute();
  }

  // Default behavior is nonmigratory; this is
  // overridden in the Mallard class.
  virtual void InitializeMigratoryRoute();
}

class Mallard : public Duck {
 public:
  Mallard();

  // Migrate south in the fall and north in the spring
  virtual void InitializeMigratoryRoute();
}

class DonaldDuck : public Duck {
 public:
  DonaldDuck() {
    outfit_.AddShirt(Outfit::Shirts::SAILOR);
    outfit_.AddHat(Outfit::Hats::SAILOR);
  }

 private:
  Outfit outfit_;
}

You can assume this code compiles and runs (i.e., the Outfit class is defined, it implements AddShirt(), both versions of InitializeMigratoryRoute() are defined, etc). I would say this looks like perfectly reasonable code: its intention is clear and straightforward, and any sane language should have no trouble implementing this. [1] However, we’re dealing with C++, which means there are always more problems, and in fact this code is not in the least alright. In particular, there are two major things wrong with it. Do you see what they are?

This code has two major problems. →

Warning: this post got embarrassingly long. For the short version, read up through the paragraph that starts with “If you use.”

This is something that’s been bugging me for a while, and I’d like to lay it to rest. If you’ve done any work in C++, you’ve probably heard the riddle about how to swap two integers without using a temporary variable. The question is exactly what it sounds like: you have two integers (call them x and y), you want to swap their values, and you may or may not want to use a third, temporary variable while doing it. Here are some ways of swapping integers that I have actually seen in professional code written by professional coders:

{  // Limit the scope of t
  int t = x;
  x = y;
  y = t;
}

x ^= y;
y ^= x;
x ^= y;

x ^= y ^= x ^= y;

x = x + y;
y = x - y;
x = x - y;

std::swap(x, y);

Try to come up with some answers before reading further.

When you’ve decided on your answers, let’s take a closer look. No, on second thought, this got really long. For those of you who don’t want to read all the way to the end, let me just get my main point out of the way. After that, we’ll take a closer look. If you don’t want to spoil the ending, skip the next paragraph.

If you use this link you will spoil the ending, so skip to the next paragraph after this one. →

I’ve found another interesting wrinkle in the ternary operator. So, here’s a bonus question for that quiz from last time. You start with the following code:

class Abstract;
class DerivedOne;  // Inherits from Abstract
class DerivedTwo;  // Inherits from Abstract
Abstract x;
DerivedOne one;
DerivedTwo two;
bool test;

Again, you can assume that all of these are defined/initialized (and you can assume the comments are correct—both Derived* classes inherit from Abstract). Now, consider these snippets:

if (test) x = one;
else x = two;

x = (test ? one : two);
 

Another unexpected answer →

In today’s installment of “why not to program in C++,” I give you the following quiz, which Dustin, Steve, Tom, and I had to figure out today (Dustin’s code was doing the weirdest things, and we eventually traced it down to this):

Suppose you start out with the following code:

class Argument;
Argument x;
void Foo(const Argument& arg);
bool test;

You can assume that all of these are defined/initialized elsewhere in the code. For each pair of code snippets below, decide whether the two snippets are equivalent to each other.

if (test) Foo(x);
else Foo(Argument());

Foo(test ? x : Argument());
 

{ // limit the scope of y
  Argument y;
  Foo(test ? x : y);
}

Foo(test ? x : Argument());
 
 
 

Foo(x);

Foo(test ? x : x);

Foo(x);

Foo(true ? x : Argument());

The answers are worse than you'd think. →