4 ms·
Are these really that obscure? Well, the 3[array] thing is unexpected and also not something you would use in real code, so it reasonably counts as obscure (alt
by voyou 13y ago
Are these really that obscure? Well, the 3[array] thing is unexpected and also not something you would use in real code, so it reasonably counts as obscure (although it's such a hoary example of "obscure C" that it's almost familiar). But pointers-to-members, template-template parameters, and the overloads of ++ and -- are, I would have thought, just standard features you would learn in the normal course of learning the language.
- EpicEng 13y agoI thought that the reference qualifiers on member functions and perhaps the function try/catch blocks were fairly obscure, but yeah, not really anything else.
- 10098 13y agoYeah, out of all these only the "most vexing parse" struck me as somewhat obscure simply because it's so insidious. The rest... not really that obscure. I mean, come on. a[3] equivalent of *(a+3)? That's just pointer arithmetic. Most of the other stuff is probably intermediate level.
- Jare 13y agoMost people understand that a[3] and *(a + 3) yield the same result, not that they are actually identical in terms of language syntax.
- jheriko 13y agothey really aren't identical in the general case - this is a mistake on the part of the author. trivially consider the case where i overload operator[]...
- CJefferson 13y agoYes, this is more of an obscure C feature (they are exactly the same in all cases in C, the standard defines a[b] as *(a+b)), which is inherited by C++.
- the_af 13y agoThey are trivially not identical in terms of syntax: one uses ( and the other [. Surely you mean in terms of what operation they both represent?
- eXpl0it3r 13y agoObscurity can be view from a rather personal perspective. What might seem obscure for one person can be totally normal for another person (e.g. some rituals in some cults). Though I agree that some of the given examples should be clear by reading a good C++ book, which is one of the main issue with learning C++, most of the books aren't really good enough.
- ccoggins 13y agoAny good ones that you recommend? Is Stroustup's new version of the C++PL worth reading through or is that more of a reference book?
- k00pa 13y agoI think its obscure for the people used to use scrtipting-languages.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]