This is a follow-up to my previous question: C++ compile error constructing object with rvalue std::string from which I learned about the Most Vexing Parse.
I understand now the gist of the problem, however there's one leftover item of syntax I still don't quite understand, which I'd like to ask as a standalone question, since the discussions on the previous post were getting quite long.
Given this code:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
class Foo
{
public:
Foo(double d)
: mD(d)
{
}
Foo(const std::string& str)
{
try
{
mD = std::stod(str);
}
catch (...)
{
throw;
}
}
Foo(const Foo& other)
: mD(other.mD)
{
}
virtual ~Foo() {}
protected:
double mD;
};
class Bar
{
public:
Bar(const Foo& a, const Foo& b)
: mA(a)
, mB(b)
{
}
virtual ~Bar() {}
protected:
Foo mA;
Foo mB;
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
if (argc < 3) { return 0; }
Foo a(std::string(argv[1]));
Foo b(std::string(argv[2]));
Bar wtf(a, b);
}
I understand, now, that the line Foo a(std::string(argv[1])); can be interpreted as either:
(1) Create a Foo named a with an anonymous std::string that is created with a char*. (My desired interpretation)
or
(2) A declaration (not definition) for a function named a that takes a std::string*.
From answers to the original question, I learned that functions could be declared within the scope of another function. That was new to me, but seems within reason, I can buy it.
What I can't wrap my head around, though, is the interpretation of std::string(argv[1]) as a std::string*.
argv[1] is a char*, so I still don't see why the line isn't interpreted as an anonymous std::string being constructed with a char*. After all, I've used code analogous to the following hundreds of times without ever scrutinizing whether this would result in anything other than the construction of a std::string with its char* constructor:
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
char* pFoo[] = {"foo"};
std::string str(pFoo[0]);
std::cout << str << std::endl;
return 0;
}
I'm on the cusp of understanding the most vexing parse problem; if someone could further explain this last niggling part, that might help push me over the edge.
Thank you.
Foo a(std::string(argv[1]));
declares a function named a which returns Foo and has one parameter (named argv) of type std::string[1]. Since array function parameters are always replaced with pointer parameters, the actual type of the function parameter becomes std::string*.
Related
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;
For a class Foo, is there a way to disallow constructing it without giving it a name?
For example:
Foo("hi");
And only allow it if you give it a name, like the following?
Foo my_foo("hi");
The lifetime of the first one is just the statement, and the second one is the enclosing block. In my use case, Foo is measuring the time between constructor and destructor. Since I never refer to the local variable, I often forget to put it in, and accidentally change the lifetime. I'd like to get a compile time error instead.
Another macro-based solution:
#define Foo class Foo
The statement Foo("hi"); expands to class Foo("hi");, which is ill-formed; but Foo a("hi") expands to class Foo a("hi"), which is correct.
This has the advantage that it is both source- and binary-compatible with existing (correct) code. (This claim is not entirely correct - please see Johannes Schaub's Comment and ensuing discussion below: "How can you know that it is source compatible with existing code? His friend includes his header and has void f() { int Foo = 0; } which previously compiled fine and now miscompiles! Also, every line that defines a member function of class Foo fails: void class Foo::bar() {}")
How about a little hack
class Foo
{
public:
Foo (const char*) {}
};
void Foo (float);
int main ()
{
Foo ("hello"); // error
class Foo a("hi"); // OK
return 1;
}
Make the constructor private but give the class a create method.
This one doesn't result in a compiler error, but a runtime error. Instead of measuring a wrong time, you get an exception which may be acceptable too.
Any constructor you want to guard needs a default argument on which set(guard) is called.
struct Guard {
Guard()
:guardflagp()
{ }
~Guard() {
assert(guardflagp && "Forgot to call guard?");
*guardflagp = 0;
}
void *set(Guard const *&guardflag) {
if(guardflagp) {
*guardflagp = 0;
}
guardflagp = &guardflag;
*guardflagp = this;
}
private:
Guard const **guardflagp;
};
class Foo {
public:
Foo(const char *arg1, Guard &&g = Guard())
:guard()
{ g.set(guard); }
~Foo() {
assert(!guard && "A Foo object cannot be temporary!");
}
private:
mutable Guard const *guard;
};
The characteristics are:
Foo f() {
// OK (no temporary)
Foo f1("hello");
// may throw (may introduce a temporary on behalf of the compiler)
Foo f2 = "hello";
// may throw (introduces a temporary that may be optimized away
Foo f3 = Foo("hello");
// OK (no temporary)
Foo f4{"hello"};
// OK (no temporary)
Foo f = { "hello" };
// always throws
Foo("hello");
// OK (normal copy)
return f;
// may throw (may introduce a temporary on behalf of the compiler)
return "hello";
// OK (initialized temporary lives longer than its initializers)
return { "hello" };
}
int main() {
// OK (it's f that created the temporary in its body)
f();
// OK (normal copy)
Foo g1(f());
// OK (normal copy)
Foo g2 = f();
}
The case of f2, f3 and the return of "hello" may not be wanted. To prevent throwing, you can allow the source of a copy to be a temporary, by resetting the guard to now guard us instead of the source of the copy. Now you also see why we used the pointers above - it allows us to be flexible.
class Foo {
public:
Foo(const char *arg1, Guard &&g = Guard())
:guard()
{ g.set(guard); }
Foo(Foo &&other)
:guard(other.guard)
{
if(guard) {
guard->set(guard);
}
}
Foo(const Foo& other)
:guard(other.guard)
{
if(guard) {
guard->set(guard);
}
}
~Foo() {
assert(!guard && "A Foo object cannot be temporary!");
}
private:
mutable Guard const *guard;
};
The characteristics for f2, f3 and for return "hello" are now always // OK.
A few years ago I wrote a patch for the GNU C++ compiler which adds a new warning option for that situation. This is tracked in a Bugzilla item.
Unfortunately, GCC Bugzilla is a burial ground where well-considered patch-included feature suggestions go to die. :)
This was motivated by the desire to catch exactly the sort of bugs that are the subject of this question in code which uses local objects as gadgets for locking and unlocking, measuring execution time and so forth.
As is, with your implementation, you cannot do this, but you can use this rule to your advantage:
Temporary objects cannot be bound to non-const references
You can move the code from the class to an freestanding function which takes a non-const reference parameter. If you do so, You will get a compiler error if an temporary tries to bind to the non-const reference.
Code Sample
class Foo
{
public:
Foo(const char* ){}
friend void InitMethod(Foo& obj);
};
void InitMethod(Foo& obj){}
int main()
{
Foo myVar("InitMe");
InitMethod(myVar); //Works
InitMethod("InitMe"); //Does not work
return 0;
}
Output
prog.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
prog.cpp:13: error: invalid initialization of non-const reference of type ‘Foo&’ from a temporary of type ‘const char*’
prog.cpp:7: error: in passing argument 1 of ‘void InitMethod(Foo&)’
Simply don't have a default constructor, and do require a reference to an instance in every constructor.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
enum SelfRef { selfRef };
struct S
{
S( SelfRef, S const & ) {}
};
int main()
{
S a( selfRef, a );
}
No, I'm afraid this isn't possible. But you could get the same effect by creating a macro.
#define FOO(x) Foo _foo(x)
With this in place, you can just write FOO(x) instead of Foo my_foo(x).
Since the primary goal is to prevent bugs, consider this:
struct Foo
{
Foo( const char* ) { /* ... */ }
};
enum { Foo };
int main()
{
struct Foo foo( "hi" ); // OK
struct Foo( "hi" ); // fail
Foo foo( "hi" ); // fail
Foo( "hi" ); // fail
}
That way you can't forget to name the variable and you can't forget to write struct. Verbose, but safe.
Declare one-parametric constructor as explicit and nobody will ever create an object of that class unintentionally.
For example
class Foo
{
public:
explicit Foo(const char*);
};
void fun(const Foo&);
can only be used this way
void g() {
Foo a("text");
fun(a);
}
but never this way (through a temporary on the stack)
void g() {
fun("text");
}
See also: Alexandrescu, C++ Coding Standards, Item 40.
For a class Foo, is there a way to disallow constructing it without giving it a name?
For example:
Foo("hi");
And only allow it if you give it a name, like the following?
Foo my_foo("hi");
The lifetime of the first one is just the statement, and the second one is the enclosing block. In my use case, Foo is measuring the time between constructor and destructor. Since I never refer to the local variable, I often forget to put it in, and accidentally change the lifetime. I'd like to get a compile time error instead.
Another macro-based solution:
#define Foo class Foo
The statement Foo("hi"); expands to class Foo("hi");, which is ill-formed; but Foo a("hi") expands to class Foo a("hi"), which is correct.
This has the advantage that it is both source- and binary-compatible with existing (correct) code. (This claim is not entirely correct - please see Johannes Schaub's Comment and ensuing discussion below: "How can you know that it is source compatible with existing code? His friend includes his header and has void f() { int Foo = 0; } which previously compiled fine and now miscompiles! Also, every line that defines a member function of class Foo fails: void class Foo::bar() {}")
How about a little hack
class Foo
{
public:
Foo (const char*) {}
};
void Foo (float);
int main ()
{
Foo ("hello"); // error
class Foo a("hi"); // OK
return 1;
}
Make the constructor private but give the class a create method.
This one doesn't result in a compiler error, but a runtime error. Instead of measuring a wrong time, you get an exception which may be acceptable too.
Any constructor you want to guard needs a default argument on which set(guard) is called.
struct Guard {
Guard()
:guardflagp()
{ }
~Guard() {
assert(guardflagp && "Forgot to call guard?");
*guardflagp = 0;
}
void *set(Guard const *&guardflag) {
if(guardflagp) {
*guardflagp = 0;
}
guardflagp = &guardflag;
*guardflagp = this;
}
private:
Guard const **guardflagp;
};
class Foo {
public:
Foo(const char *arg1, Guard &&g = Guard())
:guard()
{ g.set(guard); }
~Foo() {
assert(!guard && "A Foo object cannot be temporary!");
}
private:
mutable Guard const *guard;
};
The characteristics are:
Foo f() {
// OK (no temporary)
Foo f1("hello");
// may throw (may introduce a temporary on behalf of the compiler)
Foo f2 = "hello";
// may throw (introduces a temporary that may be optimized away
Foo f3 = Foo("hello");
// OK (no temporary)
Foo f4{"hello"};
// OK (no temporary)
Foo f = { "hello" };
// always throws
Foo("hello");
// OK (normal copy)
return f;
// may throw (may introduce a temporary on behalf of the compiler)
return "hello";
// OK (initialized temporary lives longer than its initializers)
return { "hello" };
}
int main() {
// OK (it's f that created the temporary in its body)
f();
// OK (normal copy)
Foo g1(f());
// OK (normal copy)
Foo g2 = f();
}
The case of f2, f3 and the return of "hello" may not be wanted. To prevent throwing, you can allow the source of a copy to be a temporary, by resetting the guard to now guard us instead of the source of the copy. Now you also see why we used the pointers above - it allows us to be flexible.
class Foo {
public:
Foo(const char *arg1, Guard &&g = Guard())
:guard()
{ g.set(guard); }
Foo(Foo &&other)
:guard(other.guard)
{
if(guard) {
guard->set(guard);
}
}
Foo(const Foo& other)
:guard(other.guard)
{
if(guard) {
guard->set(guard);
}
}
~Foo() {
assert(!guard && "A Foo object cannot be temporary!");
}
private:
mutable Guard const *guard;
};
The characteristics for f2, f3 and for return "hello" are now always // OK.
A few years ago I wrote a patch for the GNU C++ compiler which adds a new warning option for that situation. This is tracked in a Bugzilla item.
Unfortunately, GCC Bugzilla is a burial ground where well-considered patch-included feature suggestions go to die. :)
This was motivated by the desire to catch exactly the sort of bugs that are the subject of this question in code which uses local objects as gadgets for locking and unlocking, measuring execution time and so forth.
As is, with your implementation, you cannot do this, but you can use this rule to your advantage:
Temporary objects cannot be bound to non-const references
You can move the code from the class to an freestanding function which takes a non-const reference parameter. If you do so, You will get a compiler error if an temporary tries to bind to the non-const reference.
Code Sample
class Foo
{
public:
Foo(const char* ){}
friend void InitMethod(Foo& obj);
};
void InitMethod(Foo& obj){}
int main()
{
Foo myVar("InitMe");
InitMethod(myVar); //Works
InitMethod("InitMe"); //Does not work
return 0;
}
Output
prog.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
prog.cpp:13: error: invalid initialization of non-const reference of type ‘Foo&’ from a temporary of type ‘const char*’
prog.cpp:7: error: in passing argument 1 of ‘void InitMethod(Foo&)’
Simply don't have a default constructor, and do require a reference to an instance in every constructor.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
enum SelfRef { selfRef };
struct S
{
S( SelfRef, S const & ) {}
};
int main()
{
S a( selfRef, a );
}
No, I'm afraid this isn't possible. But you could get the same effect by creating a macro.
#define FOO(x) Foo _foo(x)
With this in place, you can just write FOO(x) instead of Foo my_foo(x).
Since the primary goal is to prevent bugs, consider this:
struct Foo
{
Foo( const char* ) { /* ... */ }
};
enum { Foo };
int main()
{
struct Foo foo( "hi" ); // OK
struct Foo( "hi" ); // fail
Foo foo( "hi" ); // fail
Foo( "hi" ); // fail
}
That way you can't forget to name the variable and you can't forget to write struct. Verbose, but safe.
Declare one-parametric constructor as explicit and nobody will ever create an object of that class unintentionally.
For example
class Foo
{
public:
explicit Foo(const char*);
};
void fun(const Foo&);
can only be used this way
void g() {
Foo a("text");
fun(a);
}
but never this way (through a temporary on the stack)
void g() {
fun("text");
}
See also: Alexandrescu, C++ Coding Standards, Item 40.
The following code
#include <vector>
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
std::string const& at(std::vector<std::string> const& n, int i)
{
return n[i];
}
std::vector<std::string> mkvec()
{
std::vector<std::string> n;
n.push_back("kagami");
n.push_back("misao");
return n;
}
int main()
{
std::string const& s = at(mkvec(), 0);
std::cout << s << std::endl; // D'oh!
return 0;
}
may lead to crash because the original vector is already destructed there. In C++ 2011 (c++0x) after rvalue-reference is introduced in, a deleted function declaration can be used to completely forbid calls to at if the vector argument is an rvalue
std::string const& at(std::vector<std::string>&&, int) = delete;
That looks good, but the following code still cause crash
int main()
{
std::string const& s = mkvec()[0];
std::cout << s << std::endl; // D'oh!
return 0;
}
because calls to member function operator [] (size_type) const of an rvalue object is still allowed. Is there any way can I forbid this kind of calls?
FIX:
The examples above is not what I did in real projects. I just wonder if C++ 2011 support any member function qualifying like
class A {
void func() rvalue; // Then a call on an rvalue object goes to this overload
void func() const;
};
FIX:
It's great, but I think C++ standard goes too far at this feature. Anyway, I have following code compiled on clang++ 2.9
#include <cstdio>
struct A {
A() {}
void func() &
{
puts("a");
}
void func() &&
{
puts("b");
}
void func() const &
{
puts("c");
}
};
int main()
{
A().func();
A a;
a.func();
A const b;
b.func();
return 0;
}
Thanks a lot!
No, and you shouldn't. How am I to do std::cout << at(mkvec(), 0) << std::endl;, a perfectly reasonable thing, if you've banned me from using at() on temporaries?
Storing references to temporaries is just a problem C++ programmers have to deal with, unfortunately.
To answer your new question, yes, you can do this:
class A {
void func() &; // lvalues go to this one
void func() &&; // rvalues go to this one
};
A a;
a.func(); // first overload
A().func(); // second overload
Just an idea:
To disable copying constructor on the vector somehow.
vector ( const vector<T,Allocator>& x );
Implicit copying of arrays is not that good thing anyway. (wondering why STL authors decided to define such ctor at all)
It will fix problems like you've mentioned and as a bonus will force you to use more effective version of your function:
void mkvec(std::vector<std::string>& n)
{
n.push_back("kagami");
n.push_back("misao");
}
I had this problem happen to me in the past http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/ctors.html#faq-10.19
My question is, when writing
Foo x(Bar());
Why is it "declaring a non-member function that returns a Bar object" ? i can understand it if i wrote
Foo x(Bar);
But what does it think the () means in Bar()?
Bar() there means "a function that takes no arguments and returns Bar". Consider a declaration of such a function:
Bar GetBar();
if you remove the name of the function from this, what remains will describe the function type. Some examples of where it's used is in template arguments; e.g. you can write this:
std::function<int(float)> f1;
std::function<Bar()> f2;
Hopefully this explains the syntax in general. Now what this means in this particular case. When a function type is used as a type of function argument, it is automatically subsituted for a function pointer type. So the equivalent (but clearer) declaration would be:
Foo x(Bar(*)());
Consider the following more simple example:
void fn1(int a)
{
}
fn1 is a function that takes a single int paramter.
Now take a look at fn2:
//Same as typing void fn2(int (*b)())
void fn2(int b())
{
}
Here fn2 does not take in an int, but it takes in a function that returns an int.
Now if you wanted to declare fn1 you could type it like so:
void fn1(int);//ommit the parameter name
And you can also declare fn2 like so:
void fn2(int());
Example usage:
#include <iostream>
int a()
{
sd::cout<<"hi"<<std::endl;
return 0;
}
void fn2(int b())
{
b();
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
fn1(3);
fn2(a);
}
Output will be:
hi
Now there is one more topic to understand... You can forward declare functions with scope.
a.cpp:
void a()
{
void c();
c();
}
//void b()
//{
// c();//<--- undeclared identifier
//}
int main(int argc, char**argv)
{
a();
return 0;
}
c.cpp
#include <iostream>
void c()
{
std::cout<<"called me"<<std::endl;
}
g++ a.cpp c.cpp
./a.out
Output will be:
Called me
And tying it all together. If you do this:
int main(int argc, char**argv)
{
int b();
return 0;
}
You are forward declaring a function called b() that returns type int and takes no parameters
If you would have done b = 3; then you'd get a compiling error as you can't assign a value to a forward declared function.
And once you've read all that it becomes clear:
Foo x(Bar());
You are forward declaring a function x that returns a type Foo and takes in a parameter to a function that returns a type Bar.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be online, but Scott Meyers' book, Effective STL, has a good, detailed explanation of what's going on in your example in Item 6: Be alert for C++'s most vexing parse.
On the plus side, the book is worth the price for anyone serious about C++.