C++ to C# something is backwards?

[Fr0z3N]

it's like:

(Variable + 6) = Array[5];

how the hell would that convert to C#? It's like backwards C++.

Variable = (Array[5] + 6); would make more sence.

[Eibro]

it's like:

(Variable + 6) = Array[5];

how the hell would that convert to C#? It's like backwards C++.

Variable = (Array[5] + 6); would make more sence.

No, those two aren't equivalent. The only way I see the first being a valid statement is if it were *(Variable + 6) = Array[5];, since (Variable + 6) isn't an l-value and thus cannot be assigned to.

[Yoni]

Surely you can see the statement being valid. Just overload operator+ to return a reference...

[MyndFyre]

Surely you can see the statement being valid. Just overload operator+ to return a reference...

First, you can't overload operators like that in C#....

Second, Eibro was correct in saying that *(Variable + 6) would be correct syntax.  You'd need to put that within an unsafe code block and also compile with the /unsafe switch.

[K]

Surely you can see the statement being valid. Just overload operator+ to return a reference...

First, you can't overload operators like that in C#....

Second, Eibro was correct in saying that *(Variable + 6) would be correct syntax.  You'd need to put that within an unsafe code block and also compile with the /unsafe switch.

Yoni is talking about Eibro's comment that the original code:

Code Select Expand


(Variable + 6) = Array[5];


could not compile in C++ since (Variable + 6) would not be an L-Value.  He is correct in saying that since we are not given a type for Variable, its possible that the +operator is overloaded and (Variable+6) is returning a reference, and hence a valid L-value.

To convert the code

Code Select Expand


*(Variable + 6) = Array[5];


to C# probably wouldn't require using unsafe code if we were given more information, such as the type of Variable.  It would simply require changing the pointer arithmatic to an array index.

[Eibro]

Yes, I thought of that too, but returning a reference from opertor+() doesn't make sense either.