Hi Phil,
A lot of people have this question, and it does seem unnecessary when
a C-style cast (e.g. double d = double(i);) is easier. The FAQ at
http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#static-cast gives some
of the reasons. The main two are: C style casts are vague -- there are
a few logically different types of casting, and the C style cast
doesn't really provide the compiler with enough information about what
sort of cast is to be performed. The other reason that I hear a lot
is, to quote the FAQ: "An ugly operation should have an ugly syntactic
form." C style casts are next to impossible to search for, and they
blend in when visually inspecting code. The C++ casting methods stick
out like sore thumbs, as they should ;-)
Hope this helps,
Dave
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Phil Evans
Looking at some cctbx C++ code, I note use of syntax like
int i = 1234; double d = static_cast<double>(i);
How is this different or indeed preferable to
double d = double(i);
or
d = i;
?
Phil _______________________________________________ cctbxbb mailing list [email protected] http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/cctbxbb