C ++演员

本文介绍了C ++演员的处理方法，对大家解决问题具有一定的参考价值，需要的朋友们下面随着小编来一起学习吧！ 问题描述

一般建议使用 " static_cast< SomeType> someInstance"而不是 传统臭名昭着的（SomeType）someInstance。 我应该对简单类型使用相同的练习， 即代替： 双倍分数=（双倍）n /总数; 我应该写这个吗？ double fraction = static_cast< double>（n）/ static_cast< double>（总计）; 我找到传统版本更具可读性 在这种情况下。 谢谢！

It is a common recommendation to use "static_cast<SomeType> someInstance" instead of the traditional infamous "(SomeType) someInstance". Should I use the same practice for simple types, i.e. instead of: double fraction = (double) n / total; should I write this? double fraction = static_cast<double>(n) / static_cast<double>(total); I find the traditional version a lot more readable in this case. Thanks!

推荐答案

*雅各布： 使用" static_cast< SomeType>这是一个常见的建议。 someInstance"而不是传统的臭名昭着的（SomeType）someInstance" 我应该对简单类型使用相同的练习，即代替： double fraction =（double）n / total; 我应该写这个吗？ double fraction = static_cast< double>（n）/ static_cast< double> ;（总）; 在这种情况下，我发现传统版本更具可读性。 It is a common recommendation to use "static_cast<SomeType> someInstance" instead of the traditional infamous "(SomeType) someInstance". Should I use the same practice for simple types, i.e. instead of: double fraction = (double) n / total; should I write this? double fraction = static_cast<double>(n) / static_cast<double>(total); I find the traditional version a lot more readable in this case.

至少有为什么它是一个好主意（TM）使用C ++ 名为强制转换的简单内置类型的三个原因： *它可以帮助你你的代码的维护者记得一般都不要使用C风格的，这有助于防止意外使用。 * C风格的演员可以做const_cast和reinterpret_cast，你可能只需要b $ b不想要（尤其不是指针值）。 *类型定义可能会改变wh代码被维护。 - 答：因为它弄乱了人们通常阅读文本的顺序。 问：为什么这么糟糕？ A：热门发布。 问：usenet和电子邮件中最烦人的是什么？

There are at least three reasons why it''s a Good Idea (TM) to use the C++ named casts also for simple built-in types: * It helps you and maintainers of your code remember to not use C-style casts in general, which can help to prevent accidental usage. * C-style casts can do const_cast and reinterpret_cast, which you probably don''t want (especially not for pointer values). * The type definitions may be changed when the code is maintained. -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is it such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

" Jacob" < JA *** @ yahoo>在消息中写道 新闻：3M ******************** @ telenor ... "Jacob" <ja***@yahoo> wrote in message news:3M********************@telenor... 它是一个常见的建议使用static_cast< SomeType> someInstance"而不是传统的臭名昭着的（SomeType）someInstance" 我应该对简单类型使用相同的练习，即代替： double fraction =（double）n / total; 我应该写这个吗？ double fraction = static_cast< double>（n）/ static_cast< double> ;（总）; 在这种情况下，我发现传统版本更具可读性。 这是真的！传统版本比C ++ 新的强制转换操作符感觉更自然。 但这就是为什么C ++强制转换操作符看起来如此：它们是如此丑陋 希望劝阻你并警告你不要使用它们。并且您总是可以在文本编辑器中使用查找来获取所有演员阵容。 谢谢！ It is a common recommendation to use "static_cast<SomeType> someInstance" instead of the traditional infamous "(SomeType) someInstance". Should I use the same practice for simple types, i.e. instead of: double fraction = (double) n / total; should I write this? double fraction = static_cast<double>(n) / static_cast<double>(total); I find the traditional version a lot more readable in this case. This is TRUE! The traditional version DOES feel a lot natural than the C++ new cast operators. But this is EXACTLY why C++ cast operators look this way: they are so ugly looking to discourage you and alert you from using them. And you can always pick up all casts using a find in a text editor. Thanks!

是等价的 double fraction =（double）n / total; really double fraction = static_cast< double>（ n）/总计; 双倍分数=（双倍）n /（双）总数; 不是那么可读 Is the equivilent of double fraction = (double) n / total; really double fraction = static_cast<double>(n) / total; double fraction = (double) n / (double) total; isn''t that readable either