On: I_suck_and_my_tests_are_order_dependent

[GuB-42]

For 1, I have seen somewhere that it a reason why C++ casts are so verbose compared to C casts: like "reinterpret_cast<A>(b)" vs "(A)b". Type casting in C++ may be the result of bad design. And while casts definitely have a place, they are ugly, and therefore, they should look ugly.

[xigoi → GuB-42]

But C++ still lets you use C-style casts, which kind of defeats the point.

[munch117 → xigoi]

Not so much, you could phase out C-style casts over time. C++ compilers could grow options to warn about C-style casts (if they haven't already), shops could outlaw them in coding style guides, and slowly it would go away.

What does kinda defeat the point is that C++ adds a new form of cast that is even less conspicuous than a C-style cast:

  typedef int* int_p;
  int f(char* p)
  {
      int* ip = int_p(p); // basically a reinterpret_cast
      return *ip;
  }
  int main(int argc, char** argv)
  {
      return f(argv[0]);
  }

gcc -Wall compiles this with no warnings.

[scatters → munch117]

Ugh, I really need to clean up and submit my patch that adds those warnings. Hopefully I'll have some time this year.

[planede → xigoi]

You can blanket ban C-style casts with appropriate warnings and static analysis.