When To Use static_cast as opposed to traditional methods

C++ introduced the use of new casting operators.    In a book I am reading I have came across
static_cast as a way to convert types to other types.  Previously I would  use the following method of
casting.

while ((!isspace(pBuffer[location])) && ((unsigned int)location < strlen(pBuffer)))

Should I abandon the above method of casting for the static_cast method used
below.

while ((!isspace(pBuffer[location])) && (static_cast<unsigned int>(location) < strlen(pBuffer)))

What are the advantages of using static_cast as opposed to direct casting as
in the first line of code?  Are there any advantages to using the former casting method I was used to.

Thanks For The Input.
Darrell
larockdAsked:
Who is Participating?
 
q2guoConnect With a Mentor Commented:
ok, static_cast is exactly the same as the old c style cast.  It was introduced in C++ along with three other types of casts.  These three other types of casts are very different from the old style cast.  

So, in your example using static_cast didn't give you any advantage except it is easier to spot than the c style.
0
 
q2guoCommented:
static_cast has basically the same power and meaning as the general-purpose c-style cast.  If you are programming in C++
you should abandon the old style C cast.  Also, the new style
cast in C++ is easier to indentify.
0
 
larockdAuthor Commented:
I want to know what the advantages are.  Why did they create static_cast and abandoned the old casting style.  What are the benefits.  

As in my question I posed these questions which were not answered in your proposed answer
What are the advantages of using static_cast as opposed to direct casting as
in the first line of code?  Are there any advantages to using the former casting method I was used to.
0
 
nietodCommented:
As q2quop said, the new static cast is FUNCTIONALLY identical to the old cast.  That is, it produces the same result.  However there is an important difference.  It stands out (it is ugly as sin.)  This can makes sure that people reading the code don't miss it by mistake.  The old cast just consists of a type name and parenthesis and in a complex expression can easily be missed.

In most cases, I prefer the old cast myself, unless it looks like it is going to get burried.
0
 
larockdAuthor Commented:
Thanks For the input..

0
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.