More Books
C++ Gotchas: Avoiding Common Problems in Coding and Design
Main Page
Table of content
Copyright
Addison-Wesley Professional Computing Series
Preface
Acknowledgments
Chapter 1. Basics
Gotcha #1: Excessive Commenting
Gotcha #2: Magic Numbers
Gotcha #3: Global Variables
Gotcha #4: Failure to Distinguish Overloading from Default Initialization
Gotcha #5: Misunderstanding References
Gotcha #6: Misunderstanding Const
Gotcha #7: Ignorance of Base Language Subtleties
Gotcha #8: Failure to Distinguish Access and Visibility
Gotcha #9: Using Bad Language
Gotcha #10: Ignorance of Idiom
Gotcha #11: Unnecessary Cleverness
Gotcha #12: Adolescent Behavior
Chapter 2. Syntax
Gotcha #13: Array/Initializer Confusion
Gotcha #14: Evaluation Order Indecision
Gotcha #15: Precedence Problems
Gotcha #16: 'for' Statement Debacle
Gotcha #17: Maximal Munch Problems
Gotcha #18: Creative Declaration-Specifier Ordering
Gotcha #19: Function/Object Ambiguity
Gotcha #20: Migrating Type-Qualifiers
Gotcha #21: Self-Initialization
Gotcha #22: Static and Extern Types
Gotcha #23: Operator Function Lookup Anomaly
Gotcha #24: Operator '->' Subtleties
Chapter 3. The Preprocessor
Gotcha #25: '#define' Literals
Gotcha #26: '#define' Pseudofunctions
Gotcha #27: Overuse of '#if'
Gotcha #28: Side Effects in Assertions
Chapter 4. Conversions
Gotcha #29: Converting through 'void *'
Gotcha #30: Slicing
Gotcha #31: Misunderstanding Pointer-to-Const Conversion
Gotcha #32: Misunderstanding Pointer-to-Pointer-to-Const Conversion
Gotcha #33: Misunderstanding Pointer-to-Pointer-to-Base Conversion
Gotcha #34: Pointer-to-Multidimensional-Array Problems
Gotcha #35: Unchecked Downcasting
Gotcha #36: Misusing Conversion Operators
Gotcha #37: Unintended Constructor Conversion
Gotcha #38: Casting under Multiple Inheritance
Gotcha #39: Casting Incomplete Types
Gotcha #40: Old-Style Casts
Gotcha #41: Static Casts
Gotcha #42: Temporary Initialization of Formal Arguments
Gotcha #43: Temporary Lifetime
Gotcha #44: References and Temporaries
Gotcha #45: Ambiguity Failure of 'dynamic_cast'
Gotcha #46: Misunderstanding Contravariance
Chapter 5. Initialization
Gotcha #47: Assignment/Initialization Confusion
Gotcha #48: Improperly Scoped Variables
Gotcha #49: Failure to Appreciate C++'s Fixation on Copy Operations
Gotcha #50: Bitwise Copy of Class Objects
Gotcha #51: Confusing Initialization and Assignment in Constructors
Gotcha #52: Inconsistent Ordering of the Member Initialization List
Gotcha #53: Virtual Base Default Initialization
Gotcha #54: Copy Constructor Base Initialization
Gotcha #55: Runtime Static Initialization Order
Gotcha #56: Direct versus Copy Initialization
Gotcha #57: Direct Argument Initialization
Gotcha #58: Ignorance of the Return Value Optimizations
Gotcha #59: Initializing a Static Member in a Constructor
Chapter 6. Memory and Resource Management
Gotcha #60: Failure to Distinguish Scalar and Array Allocation
Gotcha #61: Checking for Allocation Failure
Gotcha #62: Replacing Global New and Delete
Gotcha #63: Confusing Scope and Activation of Member 'new' and 'delete'
Gotcha #64: Throwing String Literals
Gotcha #65: Improper Exception Mechanics
Gotcha #66: Abusing Local Addresses
Gotcha #67: Failure to Employ Resource Acquisition Is Initialization
Gotcha #68: Improper Use of 'auto_ptr'
Chapter 7. Polymorphism
Gotcha #69: Type Codes
Gotcha #70: Nonvirtual Base Class Destructor
Gotcha #71: Hiding Nonvirtual Functions
Gotcha #72: Making Template Methods Too Flexible
Gotcha #73: Overloading Virtual Functions
Gotcha #74: Virtual Functions with Default Argument Initializers
Gotcha #75: Calling Virtual Functions in Constructors and Destructors
Gotcha #76: Virtual Assignment
Gotcha #77: Failure to Distinguish among Overloading, Overriding, and Hiding
Gotcha #78: Failure to Grok Virtual Functions and Overriding
Gotcha #79: Dominance Issues
Chapter 8. Class Design
Gotcha #80: Get/Set Interfaces
Gotcha #81: Const and Reference Data Members
Gotcha #82: Not Understanding the Meaning of Const Member Functions
Gotcha #83: Failure to Distinguish Aggregation and Acquaintance
Gotcha #84: Improper Operator Overloading
Gotcha #85: Precedence and Overloading
Gotcha #86: Friend versus Member Operators
Gotcha #87: Problems with Increment and Decrement
Gotcha #88: Misunderstanding Templated Copy Operations
Chapter 9. Hierarchy Design
Gotcha #89: Arrays of Class Objects
Gotcha #90: Improper Container Substitutability
Gotcha #91: Failure to Understand Protected Access
Gotcha #92: Public Inheritance for Code Reuse
Gotcha #93: Concrete Public Base Classes
Gotcha #94: Failure to Employ Degenerate Hierarchies
Gotcha #95: Overuse of Inheritance
Gotcha #96: Type-Based Control Structures
Gotcha #97: Cosmic Hierarchies
Gotcha #98: Asking Personal Questions of an Object
Gotcha #99: Capability Queries
Bibliography

Gotcha #11: Unnecessary Cleverness

C++ and C seem to attract a disproportionate number of showoffs. (Have you ever heard of an "Obfuscated Eiffel" contest?) These programmers seem to think the shortest distance between two points is the great circle route on a spherical distortion of Euclidean space.

Case in point: it's well-known in C++ circles (Euclidean or otherwise) that the formatting of code is entirely for the benefit of its human readers; it has no effect on the meaning of the code as long as the same sequence of tokens occurs. That last proviso is important, since (for example) the following two lines mean very different things (but see Gotcha #87):

a+++++b; // error! 
a+++ ++b; // OK.

as do the following two lines (see Gotcha #17):

ptr->*m; // OK. 
ptr-> *m; // error!

That said, most C++ programmers would concur that, apart from issues of tokenization of the input stream of characters, formatting is irrelevant to a program's meaning. So, for example, we can declare a variable on one line or several, with the same result. (Some programming environment debuggers and other tools are implemented in terms of line numbers rather than a more exact notion of program location. This often forces programmers to employ unnatural or inconvenient multiline formatting to get accurate error messages, be able to set accurate breakpoints, and so on. This is not a C++ language issue; it's an issue for the designers of C++ programming environments.)

long curLine = __LINE__; // current line number 
long      curLine
     =                __LINE__
  ; // same declaration

Most C++ programmers are wrong. Let's look at a simple template metaprogramming device for selecting a type at compile time:

gotcha11/select.h

template <bool cond, typename A, typename B> 
struct Select {
   typedef A Result;
};
template <typename A, typename B>
struct Select<false, A, B> {
   typedef B Result;
};

An instantiation of the Select template evaluates a condition at compile time, then instantiates one of two versions of the template, depending on the Boolean result of the expression. It's a compile-time if-statement that says, "If the condition is true, the nested Result type is A; otherwise, it's B."

gotcha11/lineno.cpp

Select< sizeof(int)==sizeof(long), int, long >::Result temp = 0; 

This statement declares temp to be an int if ints and longs occupy the same number of bytes. Otherwise, temp is declared to be a long.

Let's look at our earlier declaration of curLine. Why should we waste all that space on a long if we don't have to? Let's get unnecessarily complex for no good reason:

gotcha11/lineno.cpp

const char CM = CHAR_MAX; 
const Select<__LINE__<=CM,char,long>::Result curLine = __LINE__;

That works (and is also correct), but the line is rather long, so the maintainer who comes after us reformats a bit:

gotcha11/lineno.cpp

const Select<__LINE__<=CM,char,long>::Result 
   curLine = __LINE__;

Now we've got a bug. See it?

What if the declaration occurs on line number CHAR_MAX (which may be as small as 127)? The type of curLine will then be char and will be initialized with the maximum value of a char. As soon as we put the initializer on the following line, we'll attempt to initialize a char with one more than the maximum value of a char. The result is probably that the line number is a negative number (like -128). Clever.

Unnecessary cleverness is a common problem with C++ programmers. Remember that it's nearly always preferable to be conventional, clear, and slightly less efficient than unnecessarily clever, unclear, and unmaintainable.