«

Is there any trick to avoid typos in set functions, such as

void date::set(int day, int month, int year) {
d_day = day;
month = month; // oops: should be d_month = month
d_year = year;
}

Le mardi 30 novembre 2004 à 11:34, Siemel Naran a écrit dans
comp.lang.c++*:

> Is there any trick to avoid typos in set functions, such as
>
> void date::set(int day, int month, int year) {
> d_day = day;
> month = month; // oops: should be d_month = month
> d_year = year;
> }

const parameters can help in this case.

void date::set(const int day,const int month,const int year)
{
d_day = day;
month = month; // oops: compilation error
d_year = year;
}

--
___________ 2004-11-30 12:08:04
_/ _ \_`_`_`_) Serge PACCALIN -- sp ad mailclub.net
\ \_L_) Il faut donc que les hommes commencent
-'(__) par n'être pas fanatiques pour mériter
_/___(_) la tolérance. -- Voltaire, 1763

Siemel Naran wrote:

> Is there any trick to avoid typos in set functions, such as
> month = month; // oops: should be d_month = month

what about declaring the arguments "const" ?

Siemel Naran wrote:
>
> Is there any trick to avoid typos in set functions, such as
>
> void date::set(int day, int month, int year) {
> d_day = day;
> month = month; // oops: should be d_month = month
> d_year = year;
> }

Test your code.

--

Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)

"Siemel Naran" <> wrote:
> Is there any trick to avoid typos in set functions, such as
>
> void date::set(int day, int month, int year) {
> d_day = day;
> month = month; // oops: should be d_month = month
> d_year = year;
> }

Turn up your compiler warning level? You may get
a warning that the statement has no effect.

"Old Wolf" <> wrote in message
> "Siemel Naran" <> wrote:

> > Is there any trick to avoid typos in set functions, such as
> >
> > void date::set(int day, int month, int year) {
> > d_day = day;
> > month = month; // oops: should be d_month = month
> > d_year = year;
> > }
>
> Turn up your compiler warning level? You may get
> a warning that the statement has no effect.

OK, but many compilers only issues the warning only if month is a
fundamental or POD type. With a user defined operator=, the compiler can't
eally make the assumption that the statement has no effect (though would be
nice if it did).

Everyone, thanks for the pointers. Now how to avoid the problem

d_month = d_month; // oops: should be d_month = month

I suppose we could turn up the warning level and get a warning that variable
month is not used or test the code thoroughly. Is there a way to force a
compile error here?

Thanks.