operator-keyword

any system defined user type past to ostream object is converted to a string or char* ? like cout<<4<<"Hello World"; works perfectly fine, how is this achieved? is the << operator overloaded for each and every type? is there a way to achieve it through just one generic overloaded function? what i mean is can i have just one overloaded operator method with one parameter(like void*) and then decide inside that method how to typecast integer to char* Things worked partially if i overload operator << using Template i.e class UIStream { private: ofstream stream; public: UIStream(); ~UIStream();

We can define intrinsic operators of Python as stated here . Just for curiosity, can we define new operators like $ or *** ? (If so, then we can define ternary condition operators or rotate operators.) Expanding on @fasouto answer, but adding a bit more code. While you cannot define new operators AND you cannot redefine existing operators for built-in types, what you can do is to define a class (instantiated to any valid Python name, e.g. op ) that act as an intermediate binding for two objects, thus effectively looking like a binary infix operator: a | op | b Non-binding Implementation In

Let's say we have this class A: class A { public: int a; A(int b) { a = b; } }; I would like to create a + overload such that I could use it like this A a(1),b(2),c(3),&d; d = a + b + c; without modifying the content of each object. The next logical thing would be allocating a new chunk of memory each time like this: A &operator+ (const A &b) { A *c = new A(a+b.a); return *c; } But this would create a new problem: intermediate results are lost, causing memory leaks. I could have easily solved this problem by making a static function that takes three A object references and stores the sum of

I am taking my first semester of Java programming, and we've just covered the conditional operator (? :) conditions. I have two questions which seem to be wanting me to "nest" conditional operators within eachother, something that I could easily (yet tediously) do with if-else-if statements. 1) "Assume that month is an int variable whose value is 1 or 2 or 3 or 5 ... or 11 or 12. Write an expression whose value is "jan" or "feb" or "mar" or "apr" or "may" or "jun" or "jul" or "aug" or "sep" or "oct" or "nov" or "dec" based on the value of month. (So, if the value of month were 4 then the value

if(a() && b() && c() && d()) doSomething(); if(a()) if(b()) if(c()) if(d()) doSomething(); Is there "any" performance difference between these two? For example, in a situation that a() turns 0, will it keep running b(), c() and d() in the first if statement? Or will it work same as the second nested if statement? They're exactly identical. To test this yourself, run gcc -S test.c (presuming that this is where you've put your source) and observe the contents of test.s . Here's how the nested- if approach compiles in gcc 4.8.1 with default options (annotated with comments): main: .LFB0: .cfi

This question already has an answer here: What's the purpose of the + (pos) unary operator in Python? 6 answers So I have a simple piece of code that prints out the integers 1-10: i = 0 while i < 10: i += 1 print(i) Then if you just change one operator around on line 3, it prints out an infinite amount of 1 integers(which i understand why it does that). Why isn't a syntax error occurring when running this second program? Wouldn't it call a syntax error in the event of an assignment operator being followed by an addition operator?? i = 0 while i < 10: i =+ 1 print(i) i+=1 is the same as i=i+1 ,

In C, I can write an if-statement if (firstInt & 1) but when I try and do the same in Java, the compiler tells me "incompatible types" and says I need a boolean instead of an int . Is there any way to write that C code in Java? Any of the following should work for you: if ((firstInt & 1) != 0) if ((firstInt & 1) > 0) if ((firstInt & 1) == 1) In C an integer expression can be used implicitly as a boolean expression (although I would argue that it is a bad idea), where zero is false and any non-zero value is true. In Java that is not allowed so you have to make the expression explicitly boolean