Well, C-style casts are still useful because, unlike dynamic_cast, they need neither RTTI nor run-time checks, making the compiled code somewhat smaller and faster. You just need to be very careful with them. :-) On May 22, 2013 8:52 PM, "Jonathan Greig" <redteam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you André. The dynamic_cast worked perfectly. I'm from a C > background and have been doing C-style casts for years without any major > problems. Apparently this guy has also:) > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/28002/regular-cast-vs-static-cast-vs-dynamic-cast > > - Swyped from my droid. > > On May 22, 2013 9:21 AM, "André Somers" <an...@familiesomers.nl> wrote: > > Op 22-5-2013 16:03, Jonathan Greig schreef: > >> BaseObject* base = (BaseObject*)item; >> if(base) { base->setObjectRubberPoint(**key, point); } >> > The above looks suspicious. The cast you're doing here is unsafe. Your > check on base on the second line is useless, as the C-style cast you're > using doesn't do any checking. So, my suspicion is that your item isn't a > BaseObject, and thus the method call you make into it is going to fail. Use > a dynamic_cast<BaseObject*>(**item) for your cast instead. That cast _ > will_ result in a 0 pointer if the cast fails. > > > > André > > -- > You like Qt? > I am looking for collegues to join me at i-Optics! > > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest > >
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
