operator-keyword

I'm writing a template matrix class, and I am a bit confused as to how overloading the * operator would work. I would want to overload something like this (omitting irrelevant code): template<typename T>class Matrix4t { friend vector3 operator*(const vector3 &inputV3, const matrix4t &inputM4t); template <typename scalarT> friend scalarT operator*(const scalarT &inputSclT, const matrix4t &inputM4t); public: const matrix4t operator*(const matrix4t) vector3 operator*(const vector3 &inputV3); template <typename scalarT> const matrix4t operator*(const scalarT&); } Assuming correct definitions for

I have a function and that function takes in a class pointer. the problem is that I call the class pointer like this. Function (new ChildClass); the function looks something like this void Function (BaseClass *instance) { childClassInstance = instance; } the reason why I call it with the new keyword is because I need it outside my function. What I wanted to know was. When I'm ready to delete instance. How would I go about it? Since it's in the function parameter, how would I go about calling it in order to delete it? or how would I be able to access it's location in memory to be able to delete

If I have two structs: struct A { float x, y; inline A operator*(A b) { A out; out.x = x * b.x; out.y = y * b.y; return out; } } And an equivalent struct struct B { float x, y; } inline B operator*(B a, B b) { B out; out.x = a.x * b.x; out.y = a.y * b.y; return out; } Would you know of any reason for B's operator* to compile any differently, or run any slower or faster than A's operator* (the actual actions that go on inside the functions should be irrelevant)? What I mean is... would declaring the inline operator as a member, vs not as a member, have any generic effect on the speed of the

was it possible to add operator func to Swift class subscript method var x = ["dkfkd", "dkff"] x[2] ??= "mmmm" // equal to x[2] = x[2] ?? "mmmm" This isn’t related to the subscript operator, but more a question of how to define a ??= operator. Which you can do, but it might not work quite the way you expect. Here’s a possible implementation: // first define the ??= operator infix operator ??= { } // then some pretty standard logic for an assignment // version of ?? func ??=<T>(inout lhs: T?, rhs: T) { lhs = lhs ?? rhs } This compiles, and works as you might be expecting: var i: Int? = 1 i ??=

This question already has an answer here : Order of implicit conversions in c# (1 answer) Closed 12 months ago . Consider the following code: public class Test { public static implicit operator int(Test t) { return 42; } public override string ToString() { return "Test here!"; } } var test = new Test(); Console.WriteLine(test); // 42 Console.WriteLine((Test)test); // 42 Console.WriteLine((int)test); // 42 Console.WriteLine(test.ToString()); // "Test here!" Why in the first three cases we have answer 42 even if we explicitly cast to Test ? Does implicit operator have higher priority over

Some compiler books / articles / papers talk about design of a grammar and the relation of its operator's associativity. I'm a big fan of top-down, especially recursive descent, parsers and so far most (if not all) compilers I've written use the following expression grammar: Expr ::= Term { ( "+" | "-" ) Term } Term ::= Factor { ( "*" | "/" ) Factor } Factor ::= INTEGER | "(" Expr ")" which is an EBNF representation of this BNF: Expr ::= Term Expr' Expr' ::= ( "+" | "-" ) Term Expr' | ε Term ::= Factor Term' Term' ::= ( "*" | "/" ) Factor Term' | ε Factor = INTEGER | "(" Expr ")" According to

I am trying to implement overloading for division operator in python. class Fraction: def __init__(self,top,bottom): def gcd(m, n): while m % n != 0: old_m = m old_n = n m = old_n n = old_m % old_n return n common = gcd(top,bottom) self.num = top/common self.den = bottom/common def __str__ (self): return str(self.num) + "/" + str(self.den) def get_num(self): return self.num def get_den(self): return self.den def __add__(self, other_fraction): new_num = self.num * other_fraction.den + self.den * other_fraction.num new_den = self.den * other_fraction.den return Fraction(new_num, new_den) def _