Rosetta Code:Village Pump/C++ edits

From Rosetta Code
C++ edits
This is a particular discussion thread among many which consider Rosetta Code.


Relating to some edits of C++ examples.[[Summary::Relating to some edits of C++ examples.| ]]


Would someone who knows C++ better than I do please review the statements made today (2009-08-07) by, particularly Creating an Array and User Input - text? (Those I couldn't figure out what to do with. I've made some followup changes to the other pages; please review those as well.) --Kevin Reid 12:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to throw the non-code parts of those contributions out. Instead of picking holes in what was previously given, they should be contributing the “right” way. (No, I don't follow the ins and outs of the C++ taliban…) —Donal Fellows 13:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I know C++ pretty well, and I don't think his statements are right. I'll correct it as I see fit. -- 19:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
If the new[] operator was deprecated, I haven't heard about it. For arrays, the generally accepted way to go about it is to use std::vector. boost::array is another option, if you're willing to bring in a third-party library (And that's not at all inappropriate, as far as Rosetta Code is concerned). There are and always will be scenarios in C++ where new[] is more appropriate. I can think of three different, yet equally valid, approaches for the cin issue, though. Loop through the cin>>string input sequence until a newline is hit, for example. The breakage that was described comes from non-integer values being left in the input buffer after a cin>>int, and there's a fix for that. (I don't remember what it is, though.) Buffer flush fix taken into account, the readline approach and cin>>string+convert to int approaches are just as equally valid, from a correctness standpoint. --Short Circuit 20:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course there are no clues about a deprecation of the new operator to (m)allocate, around here and there, or I am not able to seek at all. --ShinTakezou 22:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
'new' is preferred over malloc in all cases I'm familiar with. When used on a type with a constructor, it runs the constructor. When used on a type where the new operator is overloaded, it runs the overload. malloc() isn't so easy to hook into. --Short Circuit 05:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
In fact, malloc() is almost certainly the library call that sits underneath all forms of new, though the latter is preferred because it is type aware (and std::vector is often a better choice in practice AIUI). Still, all these things have their place. –Donal Fellows 11:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)