Is there a nice way to have a non static value as default argument in a function? I've seen some older responses to the same question which always end up in explicitly writing out the overload. Is this still necessary in C++17?
What I'd like to do is do something akin to
class C {
const int N; //Initialized in constructor
void foo(int x = this->N){
//do something
}
}
instead of having to write
class C {
const int N; //Initialized in constructor
void foo(){
foo(N);
}
void foo(int x){
//do something
}
}
which makes the purpose of the overload less obvious.
One relatively elegant way (in my opinion) would be to use std::optional to accept the argument, and if no argument was provided, use the default from the object:
class C {
const int N_; // Initialized in constructor
public:
C(int x) :N_(x) {}
void foo(std::optional<int> x = std::nullopt) {
std::cout << x.value_or(N_) << std::endl;
}
};
int main() {
C c(7);
c.foo();
c.foo(0);
}
You can find the full explanation of what works/doesn't work in section 11.3.6 of the standard. Subsection 9 describes member access (excerpt):
A non-static member shall not appear in a default argument unless it
appears as the id-expressionof a class member access expression
(8.5.1.5) or unless it is used to form a pointer to member
(8.5.2.1).[Example:The declaration of X::mem1()in the following example
is ill-formed because no object is supplied for the non-static
memberX::a used as an initializer.
int b;
class X {
int a;
int mem1(int i = a);// error: non-static memberaused as default argument
int mem2(int i = b);// OK; useX::b
static int b;
};
Related
I have template function change that takes a function that takes int and returns an object of type A. So I thought I can use the constructor of A
class A {
int y;
public:
explicit A(int y) : y(2 * y) {
}
};
class B {
A x;
public:
B(int x) : x(x) {
}
template<typename F>
void change(int y, F func) {
x = func(y);
}
};
int main(void) {
B b(7);
b.change(88, A()); // << here
return 0;
}
But the compiler says no matching function for call to ‘A::A()’
How can I make it works?
You can't pass a constructor as a parameter like you are attempting. The C++ standard is very strict on not allowing the memory address of a constructor to be taken.
When you call change(88, A()), you are actually constructing a temp A object (which the compiler should not allow since A does not have a default constructor) and then you are passing that object to the parameter of change(). The compiler is correct to complain, since A does not define an operator()(int) to satisfy the call to func(y) when called in an A object.
To make this work, you need to create a separate function that constructs the A object, and then pass that function to change(), eg:
A createA(int y)
{
return A(y);
}
int main(void) {
B b(7);
b.change(88, createA);
return 0;
}
I am trying to understand how default constructor (provided by the compiler if you do not write one) versus your own default constructor works.
So for example I wrote this simple class:
class A
{
private:
int x;
public:
A() { std::cout << "Default constructor called for A\n"; }
A(int x)
{
std::cout << "Argument constructor called for A\n";
this->x = x;
}
};
int main (int argc, char const *argv[])
{
A m;
A p(0);
A n();
return 0;
}
The output is :
Default constructor called for A
Argument constructor called for A
So for the last one there is another constructor called and my question is which one and which type does n have in this case?
A n();
declares a function, named n, that takes no arguments and returns an A.
Since it is a declaration, no code is invoked/executed (especially no constructor).
After that declaration, you might write something like
A myA = n();
This would compile. But it would not link! Because there is no definition of the function n.
A n();
could be parsed as an object definition with an empty initializer or a function declaration.
The language standard specifies that the ambiguity is always resolved in favour of the function declaration (§8.5.8).
So n is a function without arguments returning an A.
For the last one NO constructor gets called.
For that matter no code even gets generated. All you're doing is telling (declaring) the compiler that there's a function n which returns A and takes no argument.
No there is not a different constructor.
A n();
is treated as a declaration of function taking no arguments and returning A object. You can see this with this code:
class A
{
public:
int x;
public:
A(){ std::cout << "Default constructor called for A\n";}
A(int x){
std::cout << "Argument constructor called for A\n";
this->x = x;
}
};
int main(int argc, char const *argv[])
{
A m;
A p(0);
A n();
n.x =3;
return 0;
}
The error is:
main.cpp:129: error: request for member ‘x’ in ‘n’, which is of non-class type ‘A()’
How should I write a constructor for a class to initialize a member that is a const structure / has const fields?
In the following example, I define a constructor within structure B and it works fine to initialize it's const fields.
But when I try to use the same technique to initialize const fields of structure C within class A it doesn't work. Can someone please help me and rewrite my class A in a way, that it starts working?
#include <iostream>
class A
{
public:
struct C
{
C (const int _x) : x (_x) {}
const int x;
};
C c (3);
};
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
struct B
{
B (const int _x) : x (_x) {}
const int x;
};
B b (2);
std::cout << b.x << std::endl;
A a;
std::cout << a.c.x << std::endl;
return 0;
}
P.S.
I did some search and I think, I understand, that unless I have C++11 support or want to use boost library, I have to define a helper function to initialize a const struct within initialization list
(C++ Constant structure member initialization)
but it seems to be crazy that I have to define alike struct, but with non const fields to initialize a struct with const fields, doesn't it?
Another thing that I found tells that I should initialize const members in a constructor of the class A, rather than in a constructor of the struct C (C++ compile time error: expected identifier before numeric constant) but it also seems crazy to me, because why should I rewrite a class constructor every time I want to add a new struct, isn't it more convenient to have a separate constructor for each struct C within the class A?
I would be grateful to any comments that could possibly clarify my confusion.
I'd do the job like this:
#include <iostream>
class A {
public:
struct C {
C(const int _x) : x(_x) {}
const int x;
};
C c; // (3);
A() : c(3) {}
};
int main(int argc, char *argv []) {
A a;
std::cout << a.c.x << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Note that it's not a matter of using a ctor in A or in C, but of the ctor for A telling how the ctor for C should be invoked. If the value that will be passed will always be 3 that's not necessary, but I'm assuming you want to be a able to pass a value of your choice when you create the C object, and it will remain constant after that.
If the value will always be the same (3 in this case) you can simplify things a lot by also making the constant static:
struct A {
struct C {
static const int x = 3;
};
C c;
};
int main() {
A a;
std::cout << a.c.x << "\n";
}
So, if the value is identical for all instances of that class, make it static const, initialize it in place, and life is good. If the value is not known until you create an instance of the object, and remains constant thereafter for the life of that object, you need to pass it in through the constructors.
For a slightly different case, there's a third possibility: if C is an independent class (not nested inside of A) you might have a situation where other instances of C use various values, but all instances of C inside an A always use the same value. In this case, you'd do something like:
struct C {
const int x;
C(int x) : x(x) {}
};
struct A {
C c;
A() : c(3) {}
};
Of course, you can do the same thing when C is nested inside of A, but when/if you do, it generally means you're setting the same value for all instances of C, so you might as well use the static const approach instead. The obvious exception would be if A had multiple constructors, so (for example) A's default constructor passed one value for C::x and its copy constructor passed a different value.
When should I explicitly write this->member in a method of
a class?
Usually, you do not have to, this-> is implied.
Sometimes, there is a name ambiguity, where it can be used to disambiguate class members and local variables. However, here is a completely different case where this-> is explicitly required.
Consider the following code:
template<class T>
struct A {
T i;
};
template<class T>
struct B : A<T> {
T foo() {
return this->i; //standard accepted by all compilers
//return i; //clang and gcc will fail
//clang 13.1.6: use of undeclared identifier 'i'
//gcc 11.3.0: 'i' was not declared in this scope
//Microsoft C++ Compiler 2019 will accept it
}
};
int main() {
B<int> b;
b.foo();
}
If you omit this->, some compilers do not know how to treat i. In order to tell it that i is indeed a member of A<T>, for any T, the this-> prefix is required.
Note: it is possible to still omit this-> prefix by using:
template<class T>
struct B : A<T> {
int foo() {
return A<T>::i; // explicitly refer to a variable in the base class
//where 'i' is now known to exist
}
};
If you declare a local variable in a method with the same name as an existing member, you will have to use this->var to access the class member instead of the local variable.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class A
{
public:
int a;
void f() {
a = 4;
int a = 5;
cout << a << endl;
cout << this->a << endl;
}
};
int main()
{
A a;
a.f();
}
prints:
5
4
There are several reasons why you might need to use this pointer explicitly.
When you want to pass a reference to your object to some function.
When there is a locally declared object with the same name as the member object.
When you're trying to access members of dependent base classes.
Some people prefer the notation to visually disambiguate member accesses in their code.
Although I usually don't particular like it, I've seen others use this-> simply to get help from intellisense!
There are few cases where using this must be used, and there are others where using the this pointer is one way to solve a problem.
1) Alternatives Available: To resolve ambiguity between local variables and class members, as illustrated by #ASk.
2) No Alternative: To return a pointer or reference to this from a member function. This is frequently done (and should be done) when overloading operator+, operator-, operator=, etc:
class Foo
{
Foo& operator=(const Foo& rhs)
{
return * this;
}
};
Doing this permits an idiom known as "method chaining", where you perform several operations on an object in one line of code. Such as:
Student st;
st.SetAge (21).SetGender (male).SetClass ("C++ 101");
Some consider this consise, others consider it an abomination. Count me in the latter group.
3) No Alternative: To resolve names in dependant types. This comes up when using templates, as in this example:
#include <iostream>
template <typename Val>
class ValHolder
{
private:
Val mVal;
public:
ValHolder (const Val& val)
:
mVal (val)
{
}
Val& GetVal() { return mVal; }
};
template <typename Val>
class ValProcessor
:
public ValHolder <Val>
{
public:
ValProcessor (const Val& val)
:
ValHolder <Val> (val)
{
}
Val ComputeValue()
{
// int ret = 2 * GetVal(); // ERROR: No member 'GetVal'
int ret = 4 * this->GetVal(); // OK -- this tells compiler to examine dependant type (ValHolder)
return ret;
}
};
int main()
{
ValProcessor <int> proc (42);
const int val = proc.ComputeValue();
std::cout << val << "\n";
}
4) Alternatives Available: As a part of coding style, to document which variables are member variables as opposed to local variables. I prefer a different naming scheme where member varibales can never have the same name as locals. Currently I'm using mName for members and name for locals.
Where a member variable would be hidden by
a local variable
If you just want
to make it explictly clear that you
are calling an instance method/variable
Some coding standards use approach (2) as they claim it makes the code easier to read.
Example:
Assume MyClass has a member variable called 'count'
void MyClass::DoSomeStuff(void)
{
int count = 0;
.....
count++;
this->count = count;
}
One other case is when invoking operators. E.g. instead of
bool Type::operator!=(const Type& rhs)
{
return !operator==(rhs);
}
you can say
bool Type::operator!=(const Type& rhs)
{
return !(*this == rhs);
}
Which might be more readable. Another example is the copy-and-swap:
Type& Type::operator=(const Type& rhs)
{
Type temp(rhs);
temp.swap(*this);
}
I don't know why it's not written swap(temp) but this seems to be common.
The other uses for this (as I thought when I read the summary and half the question... .), disregarding (bad) naming disambiguation in other answers, are if you want to cast the current object, bind it in a function object or use it with a pointer-to-member.
Casts
void Foo::bar() {
misc_nonconst_stuff();
const Foo* const_this = this;
const_this->bar(); // calls const version
dynamic_cast<Bar*>(this)->bar(); // calls specific virtual function in case of multi-inheritance
}
void Foo::bar() const {}
Binding
void Foo::baz() {
for_each(m_stuff.begin(), m_stuff.end(), bind(&Foo:framboozle, this, _1));
for_each(m_stuff.begin(), m_stuff.end(), [this](StuffUnit& s) { framboozle(s); });
}
void Foo::framboozle(StuffUnit& su) {}
std::vector<StuffUnit> m_stuff;
ptr-to-member
void Foo::boz() {
bez(&Foo::bar);
bez(&Foo::baz);
}
void Foo::bez(void (Foo::*func_ptr)()) {
for (int i=0; i<3; ++i) {
(this->*func_ptr)();
}
}
Hope it helps to show other uses of this than just this->member.
You only have to use this-> if you have a symbol with the same name in two potential namespaces. Take for example:
class A {
public:
void setMyVar(int);
void doStuff();
private:
int myVar;
}
void A::setMyVar(int myVar)
{
this->myVar = myVar; // <- Interesting point in the code
}
void A::doStuff()
{
int myVar = ::calculateSomething();
this->myVar = myVar; // <- Interesting point in the code
}
At the interesting points in the code, referring to myVar will refer to the local (parameter or variable) myVar. In order to access the class member also called myVar, you need to explicitly use "this->".
You need to use this to disambiguate between a parameters/local variables and member variables.
class Foo
{
protected:
int myX;
public:
Foo(int myX)
{
this->myX = myX;
}
};
The main (or I can say, the only) purpose of this pointer is that it points to the object used to invoke a member function.
Base on this purpose, we can have some cases that only using this pointer can solve the problem.
For example, we have to return the invoking object in a member function with argument is an same class object:
class human {
...
human & human::compare(human & h){
if (condition)
return h; // argument object
else
return *this; // invoking object
}
};
I found another interesting case of explicit usage of the "this" pointer in the Effective C++ book.
For example, say you have a const function like
unsigned String::length() const
You don't want to calculate String's length for each call, hence you want to cache it doing something like
unsigned String::length() const
{
if(!lengthInitialized)
{
length = strlen(data);
lengthInitialized = 1;
}
}
But this won't compile - you are changing the object in a const function.
The trick to solve this requires casting this to a non-const this:
String* const nonConstThis = (String* const) this;
Then, you'll be able to do in above
nonConstThis->lengthInitialized = 1;
When should I explicitly write this->member in a method of
a class?
Usually, you do not have to, this-> is implied.
Sometimes, there is a name ambiguity, where it can be used to disambiguate class members and local variables. However, here is a completely different case where this-> is explicitly required.
Consider the following code:
template<class T>
struct A {
T i;
};
template<class T>
struct B : A<T> {
T foo() {
return this->i; //standard accepted by all compilers
//return i; //clang and gcc will fail
//clang 13.1.6: use of undeclared identifier 'i'
//gcc 11.3.0: 'i' was not declared in this scope
//Microsoft C++ Compiler 2019 will accept it
}
};
int main() {
B<int> b;
b.foo();
}
If you omit this->, some compilers do not know how to treat i. In order to tell it that i is indeed a member of A<T>, for any T, the this-> prefix is required.
Note: it is possible to still omit this-> prefix by using:
template<class T>
struct B : A<T> {
int foo() {
return A<T>::i; // explicitly refer to a variable in the base class
//where 'i' is now known to exist
}
};
If you declare a local variable in a method with the same name as an existing member, you will have to use this->var to access the class member instead of the local variable.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class A
{
public:
int a;
void f() {
a = 4;
int a = 5;
cout << a << endl;
cout << this->a << endl;
}
};
int main()
{
A a;
a.f();
}
prints:
5
4
There are several reasons why you might need to use this pointer explicitly.
When you want to pass a reference to your object to some function.
When there is a locally declared object with the same name as the member object.
When you're trying to access members of dependent base classes.
Some people prefer the notation to visually disambiguate member accesses in their code.
Although I usually don't particular like it, I've seen others use this-> simply to get help from intellisense!
There are few cases where using this must be used, and there are others where using the this pointer is one way to solve a problem.
1) Alternatives Available: To resolve ambiguity between local variables and class members, as illustrated by #ASk.
2) No Alternative: To return a pointer or reference to this from a member function. This is frequently done (and should be done) when overloading operator+, operator-, operator=, etc:
class Foo
{
Foo& operator=(const Foo& rhs)
{
return * this;
}
};
Doing this permits an idiom known as "method chaining", where you perform several operations on an object in one line of code. Such as:
Student st;
st.SetAge (21).SetGender (male).SetClass ("C++ 101");
Some consider this consise, others consider it an abomination. Count me in the latter group.
3) No Alternative: To resolve names in dependant types. This comes up when using templates, as in this example:
#include <iostream>
template <typename Val>
class ValHolder
{
private:
Val mVal;
public:
ValHolder (const Val& val)
:
mVal (val)
{
}
Val& GetVal() { return mVal; }
};
template <typename Val>
class ValProcessor
:
public ValHolder <Val>
{
public:
ValProcessor (const Val& val)
:
ValHolder <Val> (val)
{
}
Val ComputeValue()
{
// int ret = 2 * GetVal(); // ERROR: No member 'GetVal'
int ret = 4 * this->GetVal(); // OK -- this tells compiler to examine dependant type (ValHolder)
return ret;
}
};
int main()
{
ValProcessor <int> proc (42);
const int val = proc.ComputeValue();
std::cout << val << "\n";
}
4) Alternatives Available: As a part of coding style, to document which variables are member variables as opposed to local variables. I prefer a different naming scheme where member varibales can never have the same name as locals. Currently I'm using mName for members and name for locals.
Where a member variable would be hidden by
a local variable
If you just want
to make it explictly clear that you
are calling an instance method/variable
Some coding standards use approach (2) as they claim it makes the code easier to read.
Example:
Assume MyClass has a member variable called 'count'
void MyClass::DoSomeStuff(void)
{
int count = 0;
.....
count++;
this->count = count;
}
One other case is when invoking operators. E.g. instead of
bool Type::operator!=(const Type& rhs)
{
return !operator==(rhs);
}
you can say
bool Type::operator!=(const Type& rhs)
{
return !(*this == rhs);
}
Which might be more readable. Another example is the copy-and-swap:
Type& Type::operator=(const Type& rhs)
{
Type temp(rhs);
temp.swap(*this);
}
I don't know why it's not written swap(temp) but this seems to be common.
The other uses for this (as I thought when I read the summary and half the question... .), disregarding (bad) naming disambiguation in other answers, are if you want to cast the current object, bind it in a function object or use it with a pointer-to-member.
Casts
void Foo::bar() {
misc_nonconst_stuff();
const Foo* const_this = this;
const_this->bar(); // calls const version
dynamic_cast<Bar*>(this)->bar(); // calls specific virtual function in case of multi-inheritance
}
void Foo::bar() const {}
Binding
void Foo::baz() {
for_each(m_stuff.begin(), m_stuff.end(), bind(&Foo:framboozle, this, _1));
for_each(m_stuff.begin(), m_stuff.end(), [this](StuffUnit& s) { framboozle(s); });
}
void Foo::framboozle(StuffUnit& su) {}
std::vector<StuffUnit> m_stuff;
ptr-to-member
void Foo::boz() {
bez(&Foo::bar);
bez(&Foo::baz);
}
void Foo::bez(void (Foo::*func_ptr)()) {
for (int i=0; i<3; ++i) {
(this->*func_ptr)();
}
}
Hope it helps to show other uses of this than just this->member.
You only have to use this-> if you have a symbol with the same name in two potential namespaces. Take for example:
class A {
public:
void setMyVar(int);
void doStuff();
private:
int myVar;
}
void A::setMyVar(int myVar)
{
this->myVar = myVar; // <- Interesting point in the code
}
void A::doStuff()
{
int myVar = ::calculateSomething();
this->myVar = myVar; // <- Interesting point in the code
}
At the interesting points in the code, referring to myVar will refer to the local (parameter or variable) myVar. In order to access the class member also called myVar, you need to explicitly use "this->".
You need to use this to disambiguate between a parameters/local variables and member variables.
class Foo
{
protected:
int myX;
public:
Foo(int myX)
{
this->myX = myX;
}
};
The main (or I can say, the only) purpose of this pointer is that it points to the object used to invoke a member function.
Base on this purpose, we can have some cases that only using this pointer can solve the problem.
For example, we have to return the invoking object in a member function with argument is an same class object:
class human {
...
human & human::compare(human & h){
if (condition)
return h; // argument object
else
return *this; // invoking object
}
};
I found another interesting case of explicit usage of the "this" pointer in the Effective C++ book.
For example, say you have a const function like
unsigned String::length() const
You don't want to calculate String's length for each call, hence you want to cache it doing something like
unsigned String::length() const
{
if(!lengthInitialized)
{
length = strlen(data);
lengthInitialized = 1;
}
}
But this won't compile - you are changing the object in a const function.
The trick to solve this requires casting this to a non-const this:
String* const nonConstThis = (String* const) this;
Then, you'll be able to do in above
nonConstThis->lengthInitialized = 1;