From: "Rafal Maj" <maj_rafal AT poczta DOT onet DOT pl>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Odp: char* as default for constructor ?
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 19:52:05 +0200
Organization: Academic Computer Center CYFRONET AGH
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <9cs5rl$cc3$1@info.cyf-kr.edu.pl>
References: <9cs59u$7r1$1 AT info DOT cyf-kr DOT edu DOT pl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d-94-53-01.cyfronet.krakow.pl
X-Trace: info.cyf-kr.edu.pl 988912310 12675 149.156.1.161 (3 May 2001 17:51:50 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news AT cyf-kr DOT edu DOT pl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 17:51:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

In 2-nd question, I ofcourse ment ONLY strings that are immediate (<- BTW,
speling ?) values, like const char *s="...";  or char *s="...";

If answer to my 2-nd question is yes, then is it safe to compare immediante
char strings using normal operator=   ?



Użytkownik Rafal Maj <maj_rafal AT poczta DOT onet DOT pl> w wiadomości do grup
dyskusyjnych napisał:9cs59u$7r1$1 AT info DOT cyf-kr DOT edu DOT pl...
> Hi, I have 2 connected questions :
> 1) Is ther something wrong with using   char *s="test"    in arguments
list
> of constructor, especialy, when I have separate definiton and declaration
of
> constructor, like :
>   class ccc { ccc(char *S="abc") ; };
>   ccc::ccc(char *S="abc) { /* ... */ }
> 2) Is is quaranteed (<-- BTW. what's spelling of that word ?) that all
> strings (char*, const char*) in my project, that are same will have same
> adresses in memory ?
> Like :
>  ***inside library, that is liked into main***
>   char *a="abc", *b="abc";  const char *c="abc";
> ***main***
>   main()
>
>     char *d="abc";
>     if ((a==b)&&(b==c)&&(c==d)) /* correct ! */  // ????
>   }
>
> Thanx in advice...
>
>