And that's OK. The high-level OOP stuff is there if you need/want it, but unlike Java, no one is trying to force that mindset down your throat. There is nothing wrong with C-like C++ code. Nothing at all.
There is nothing wrong with C-like C++ code. Nothing at all.
On the other hand, recognising that C and C++ treat 'unsigned' differently, and that certain C code may be wrong C++ code... A C/C++ coder who does not recognise that C++/C have different behaviour in certain cases is not much of a coder. (Hm, I believe that's actually one of the rare occasions when saying C/C++ is correct.)
I assume that's the bug in this code - it's neither idiomatic C++, nor is it C, but written in a manner that brings out the neatfreak in me.
Chris and Thomas: something like coverity should catch this particular bug without trouble. Have you guys verified this?
