Re: good tutorial

Discussion in 'C++' started by John Harrison, Aug 24, 2003.

  1. <> wrote in message
    news:bi9nqt$9eg$...
    > new to C++. seraching for a good tutorial for C++/MFC/Windows/.NET ?
    >


    Only C++ is on topic in this group. There are other groups for all the other
    topics.

    Its not a tutorial, but an online book, Thinking in C++ by Bruce Eckel at
    http://www.mindview.net.

    john
     
    John Harrison, Aug 24, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. John Harrison

    der Guest

    John Harrison wrote:

    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:bi9nqt$9eg$...
    >> new to C++. seraching for a good tutorial for C++/MFC/Windows/.NET ?
    >>

    >
    > Only C++ is on topic in this group. There are other groups for all the
    > other topics.
    >
    > Its not a tutorial, but an online book, Thinking in C++ by Bruce Eckel at
    > http://www.mindview.net.


    Beaware, he confuses between order of evalutation and precedence.
    (C++ Primer is also mistken, unfortunately).
    If you are going to read it, make sure you understand why order of
    evaluation & precedence are not the same thing.
    Read Steve Summit's posts on this:
    http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/readings/index2.html - Read "On precedence vs.
    order of evaluation: " (While you are at it, read the rest of the posts he
    made,too).

    Der
     
    der, Aug 24, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John Harrison

    ark Guest

    "der" <> wrote in message news:3f48a3e7@news.012.net.il...
    > John Harrison wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > <> wrote in message
    > > news:bi9nqt$9eg$...
    > >> new to C++. seraching for a good tutorial for C++/MFC/Windows/.NET ?
    > >>

    > >
    > > Only C++ is on topic in this group. There are other groups for all the
    > > other topics.
    > >
    > > Its not a tutorial, but an online book, Thinking in C++ by Bruce Eckel

    at
    > > http://www.mindview.net.

    >
    > Beaware, he confuses between order of evalutation and precedence.
    > (C++ Primer is also mistken, unfortunately).
    > If you are going to read it, make sure you understand why order of
    > evaluation & precedence are not the same thing.
    > Read Steve Summit's posts on this:
    > http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/readings/index2.html - Read "On precedence vs.
    > order of evaluation: " (While you are at it, read the rest of the posts he
    > made,too).
    >
    > Der


    Sorry for my ignorance but it feels like distinction without difference.
    Following Steve Summit, consider *p++, equivalent to *(p++). Expression p++
    _is_ evaluated first, and its _value_, as we know, is _old_ p. (Its side
    effect is incrementing p.) So *p++ dereferences _old_ p. So what? It looks
    like the distinction only muddies waters not clean otherwise either.
    Am I wrong anywhere here?
    Regards,
    Ark
     
    ark, Aug 25, 2003
    #3
  4. John Harrison

    der Guest

    ark wrote:

    >
    > "der" <> wrote in message news:3f48a3e7@news.012.net.il...
    >> John Harrison wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> > <> wrote in message
    >> > news:bi9nqt$9eg$...
    >> >> new to C++. seraching for a good tutorial for C++/MFC/Windows/.NET ?
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> > Only C++ is on topic in this group. There are other groups for all the
    >> > other topics.
    >> >
    >> > Its not a tutorial, but an online book, Thinking in C++ by Bruce Eckel

    > at
    >> > http://www.mindview.net.

    >>
    >> Beaware, he confuses between order of evalutation and precedence.
    >> (C++ Primer is also mistken, unfortunately).
    >> If you are going to read it, make sure you understand why order of
    >> evaluation & precedence are not the same thing.
    >> Read Steve Summit's posts on this:
    >> http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/readings/index2.html - Read "On precedence vs.
    >> order of evaluation: " (While you are at it, read the rest of the posts
    >> he made,too).
    >>
    >> Der

    >
    > Sorry for my ignorance but it feels like distinction without difference.
    > Following Steve Summit, consider *p++, equivalent to *(p++). Expression
    > p++ _is_ evaluated first, and its _value_, as we know, is _old_ p. (Its
    > side effect is incrementing p.) So *p++ dereferences _old_ p. So what? It
    > looks like the distinction only muddies waters not clean otherwise either.
    > Am I wrong anywhere here?
    > Regards,
    > Ark


    Ark, from your example, *p++, you cannot get the whole picture about
    order of evaluation & precedence.
    There is more to it.
    Please take a look at:
    http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/readings/precvsooe.960725.html
    and
    http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/readings/precvsooe.20010512.html

    Read it and re-read it again, until you understand.
    It should be much clearer after you have read these links.

    If that didn't help, please tell me, and I'll try my best to clarify your
    misunderstanding.

    Have fun,

    Der
     
    der, Aug 26, 2003
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. SpamBuster

    HELP: need a good socket tutorial

    SpamBuster, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Perl
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,134
    SpamBuster
    Jul 11, 2003
  2. Mr Gordonz
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    332
    SStory
    Aug 10, 2003
  3. Rensjuh
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,041
    Mabden
    Sep 2, 2004
  4. W. Watson
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,117
    W. Watson
    Sep 20, 2007
  5. Linuxmank
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    1,544
    Linuxmank
    Aug 8, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page