added 14.7

ch13/README.md

@@ -50,10 +50,10 @@ when we copy a `StrBlobPrts`, the `weak_ptr` member's use_count isn't changed.(c
 >Assuming Point is a class type with a public copy constructor, identify each use of the copy constructor in this program fragment:
 ```cpp
 Point global;
-Point foo_bar(Point arg) // 1. Pass an object as an argument to a parameter of nonreference type
+Point foo_bar(Point arg)
 {
-    Point local = arg, *heap = new Point(global); // 2.3. copy initialization
-    *heap = local; // 4. Define variables using an `=`
+    Point local = arg, *heap = new Point(global); // copy constructor
+    *heap = local;
     Point pa[ 4 ] = { local, *heap }; // 5. Brace initialize the elements in an array
     return *heap; // 6. Return an object from a function that has a nonreference return type
 }

ch14/README.md

@@ -223,3 +223,19 @@ see [Exercise 14.27](#exercise-1427)
 > We did not define a `const` version of the increment and decrement operators. Why not?
 
 Because `++` and `--` change the state of the object. Hence ,it's meaningless to do so.
+
+## Exercise 14.30:
+> Add dereference and arrow operators to your `StrBlobPtr` class and to the `ConstStrBlobPtr` class that you defined in exercise 12.22 from 12.1.6 (p. 476). Note that the operators in `constStrBlobPtr` must return `const` references because the `data` member in `constStrBlobPtr` points to a `const vector`.
+
+[hpp](ex14_30_StrBlob.h) | [cpp](ex14_30_StrBlob.cpp) | [Test](ex14_30_StrBlobTest.cpp)
+
+## Exercise 14.31:
+> Our StrBlobPtr class does not define the copy constructor, assignment operator, or a destructor. Why is that okay?
+
+Applying the Rule of 3/5:
+There is no dynamic allocation to deal with, so the synthesized destructor is enough. Moreover, no unique is needed. Hence, the synthesized ones can handle all the corresponding operations.
+
+## Exercise 14.32:
+> Define a class that holds a pointer to a `StrBlobPtr`. Define the overloaded arrow operator for that class.
+
+[hpp](ex14_32.h) | [cpp](ex14_32.cpp)