Slime <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote:
> My point was, isn't "something_cast<int>()" the C++ way instead of "int()"?

  Sometimes the latter cast is necessary.
  Consider this:

template<typename Type1, typename Type2, typename TypeConverter>
void foo(Type1 v)
{
    Type2 v2 = TypeConverter(v);
    ...
}

  Now, 'TypeConverter' can be an inner type (eg. 'int'), an abstract
type (eg. a user-defined class), a function or a class instance (for
which the 'operator()' is defined).

  For example, you could call the above function like this:

int convertDoubleToInt(double d)
{
    return some_complex_conversion_from_d_to_int;
}

...
    foo<double, int, convertDoubleToInt>(xyz);

  In this case foo() makes a convertDoubleToInt() function call.
  However, of you do it like this:

    foo<double, int, int>(xyz);

what foo() will do is a cast (that is: "int v2 = int(v);").

  Since specially in template functions a xyz() call can be many things
(function call, operator() call, typecast), that's the reason why the
'type(value)' casting is necessary.

-- 
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message