The compiler is allowed to make one implicit conversion to resolve the parameters to a function. What this means is that the compiler can use constructors callable with a single parameter to convert from one type to another in order to get the right type for a parameter.
Here's an example class with a constructor that can be used for implicit conversions:
class Foo
{
public:
// single parameter constructor, can be used as an implicit conversion
Foo (int foo) : m_foo (foo)
{
}
int GetFoo () { return m_foo; }
private:
int m_foo;
};
Here's a simple function that takes a Foo
object:
void DoBar (Foo foo)
{
int i = foo.GetFoo ();
}
and here's where the DoBar
function is called:
int main ()
{
DoBar (42);
}
The argument is not a Foo
object, but an int
. However, there exists a constructor for Foo
that takes an int
so this constructor can be used to convert the parameter to the correct type.
The compiler is allowed to do this once for each parameter.
Prefixing the explicit
keyword to the constructor prevents the compiler from using that constructor for implicit conversions. Adding it to the above class will create a compiler error at the function call DoBar (42)
. It is now necessary to call for conversion explicitly with DoBar (Foo (42))
The reason you might want to do this is to avoid accidental construction that can hide bugs.
Contrived example:
- You have a
MyString
class with a constructor that constructs a string of the given size. You have a function print(const MyString&)
(as well as an overload print (char *string)
), and you call print(3)
(when you actually intended to call print("3")
). You expect it to print "3", but it prints an empty string of length 3 instead.
Virtual destructors are useful when you might potentially delete an instance of a derived class through a pointer to base class:
class Base
{
// some virtual methods
};
class Derived : public Base
{
~Derived()
{
// Do some important cleanup
}
};
Here, you'll notice that I didn't declare Base's destructor to be virtual
. Now, let's have a look at the following snippet:
Base *b = new Derived();
// use b
delete b; // Here's the problem!
Since Base's destructor is not virtual
and b
is a Base*
pointing to a Derived
object, delete b
has undefined behaviour:
[In delete b
], if the static type of the
object to be deleted is different from its dynamic type, the static
type shall be a base class of the dynamic type of the object to be
deleted and the static type shall have a virtual destructor or the
behavior is undefined.
In most implementations, the call to the destructor will be resolved like any non-virtual code, meaning that the destructor of the base class will be called but not the one of the derived class, resulting in a resources leak.
To sum up, always make base classes' destructors virtual
when they're meant to be manipulated polymorphically.
If you want to prevent the deletion of an instance through a base class pointer, you can make the base class destructor protected and nonvirtual; by doing so, the compiler won't let you call delete
on a base class pointer.
You can learn more about virtuality and virtual base class destructor in this article from Herb Sutter.
Best Answer
string::npos
denotes that the position is not found. It is usually represented by a constant value of-1
.Reference
find
is unsuccessful, it returns-1
.So, both are equal, in your case and the
if
is satisfied.Now, to answer
because,
string::npos
is of typesize_t
which is usuallytypedef
tounsigned
type. The-1
,which is used to initialize anunsigned
type will be stored as and printing the maximum possible unsigned value.