This question already has answers here:
Default value of function parameter
(5 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
What's the place for the default parameter value? Just in function definition, or declaration, or both places?
Default parameter values must appear on the declaration, since that is the only thing that the caller sees.
EDIT: As others point out, you can have the argument on the definition, but I would advise writing all code as if that wasn't true.
You can do either, but never both. Usually you do it at function declaration and then all callers can use that default value. However you can do that at function definition instead and then only those who see the definition will be able to use the default value.
C++ places the default parameter logic in the calling side, this means that if the default value expression cannot be computed from the calling place, then the default value cannot be used.
Other compilation units normally just include the declaration so default value expressions placed in the definition can be used only in the defining compilation unit itself (and after the definition, i.e. after the compiler sees the default value expressions).
The most useful place is in the declaration (.h) so that all users will see it.
Some people like to add the default value expressions in the implementation too (as a comment):
void foo(int x = 42,
int y = 21);
void foo(int x /* = 42 */,
int y /* = 21 */)
{
...
}
However, this means duplication and will add the possibility of having the comment out of sync with the code (what's worse than uncommented code? code with misleading comments!).
Although this is an "old" thread, I still would like to add the following to it:
I've experienced the next case:
In the header file of a class, I had
int SetI2cSlaveAddress( UCHAR addr, bool force );
In the source file of that class, I had
int CI2cHal::SetI2cSlaveAddress( UCHAR addr, bool force = false )
{
...
}
As one can see, I had put the default value of the parameter "force" in the class source file, not in the class header file.
Then I used that function in a derived class as follows (derived class inherited the base class in a public way):
SetI2cSlaveAddress( addr );
assuming it would take the "force" parameter as "false" 'for granted'.
However, the compiler (put in c++11 mode) complained and gave me the following compiler error:
/home/.../mystuff/domoproject/lib/i2cdevs/max6956io.cpp: In member function 'void CMax6956Io::Init(unsigned char, unsigned char, unsigned int)':
/home/.../mystuff/domoproject/lib/i2cdevs/max6956io.cpp:26:30: error: no matching function for call to 'CMax6956Io::SetI2cSlaveAddress(unsigned char&)'
/home/.../mystuff/domoproject/lib/i2cdevs/max6956io.cpp:26:30: note: candidate is:
In file included from /home/geertvc/mystuff/domoproject/lib/i2cdevs/../../include/i2cdevs/max6956io.h:35:0,
from /home/geertvc/mystuff/domoproject/lib/i2cdevs/max6956io.cpp:1:
/home/.../mystuff/domoproject/lib/i2cdevs/../../include/i2chal/i2chal.h:65:9: note: int CI2cHal::SetI2cSlaveAddress(unsigned char, bool)
/home/.../mystuff/domoproject/lib/i2cdevs/../../include/i2chal/i2chal.h:65:9: note: candidate expects 2 arguments, 1 provided
make[2]: *** [lib/i2cdevs/CMakeFiles/i2cdevs.dir/max6956io.cpp.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [lib/i2cdevs/CMakeFiles/i2cdevs.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2
But when I added the default parameter in the header file of the base class:
int SetI2cSlaveAddress( UCHAR addr, bool force = false );
and removed it from the source file of the base class:
int CI2cHal::SetI2cSlaveAddress( UCHAR addr, bool force )
then the compiler was happy and all code worked as expected (I could give one or two parameters to the function SetI2cSlaveAddress())!
So, not only for the user of a class it's important to put the default value of a parameter in the header file, also compiling and functional wise it apparently seems to be a must!
If the functions are exposed - non-member, public or protected - then the caller should know about them, and the default values must be in the header.
If the functions are private and out-of-line, then it does make sense to put the defaults in the implementation file because that allows changes that don't trigger client recompilation (a sometimes serious issue for low-level libraries shared in enterprise scale development). That said, it is definitely potentially confusing, and there is documentation value in presenting the API in a more intuitive way in the header, so pick your compromise - though consistency's the main thing when there's no compelling reason either way.
One more point I haven't found anyone mentioned:
If you have virtual method, each declaration can have its own default value!
It depends on the interface you are calling which value will be used.
Example on ideone
struct iface
{
virtual void test(int a = 0) { std::cout << a; }
};
struct impl : public iface
{
virtual void test(int a = 5) override { std::cout << a; }
};
int main()
{
impl d;
d.test();
iface* a = &d;
a->test();
}
It prints 50
I strongly discourage you to use it like this
the declaration is generally the most 'useful', but that depends on how you want to use the class.
both is not valid.
Good question...
I find that coders typically use the declaration to declare defaults. I've been held to one way (or warned) or the other too based on the compiler
void testFunct(int nVal1, int nVal2=500);
void testFunct(int nVal1, int nVal2)
{
using namespace std;
cout << nVal1 << << nVal2 << endl;
}
You may do in either (according to standard), but remember, if your code is seeing the declaration without default argument(s) before the definition that contains default argument, then compilation error can come.
For example, if you include header containing function declaration without default argument list, thus compiler will look for that prototype as it is unaware of your default argument values and hence prototype won't match.
If you are putting function with default argument in definition, then include that file but I won't suggest that.
Adding one more point. Function declarations with default argument should be ordered from right to left and from top to bottom.
For example in the below function declaration if you change the declaration order then the compiler gives you a missing default parameter error. Reason the compiler allows you to separate the function declaration with default argument within the same scope but it should be in order from RIGHT to LEFT (default arguments) and from TOP to BOTTOM(order of function declaration default argument).
//declaration
void function(char const *msg, bool three, bool two, bool one = false);
void function(char const *msg, bool three = true, bool two, bool one); // Error
void function(char const *msg, bool three, bool two = true, bool one); // OK
//void function(char const *msg, bool three = true, bool two, bool one); // OK
int main() {
function("Using only one Default Argument", false, true);
function("Using Two Default Arguments", false);
function("Using Three Default Arguments");
return 0;
}
//definition
void function(char const *msg, bool three, bool two, bool one ) {
std::cout<<msg<<" "<<three<<" "<<two<<" "<<one<<std::endl;
}
Related
I wrote a function that requires two parameters, but I don't want those two parameters to be 0.
I want to make the compiler know that those two parameters cannot be 0 through some ways, otherwise the editor will report an error in the form of "red wavy line".
I refer to "custom exception class" to solve this problem, but I find this method does not work.
If there are someone knows how to do , I will be very happy, because it takes me a whole day
For example:
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int Fuction(int i , int j){
//code
}
int main(){
Funciton(1,1);
Funciton(0,0);
//I don't want i or j is zero
//But if they are still zero , The program will still work normally
return 0;
}
There is no integer type without a 0. However, you can provoke a compiler error by introducing a conversion to a pointer type. Its a bit hacky, but achieves what you want (I think) for a literal 0:
#include <iostream>
struct from_int {
int value;
from_int(int value) : value(value) {}
};
struct non_zero {
int value;
non_zero(int*) = delete;
non_zero(from_int f) : value(f.value) {}
};
void bar(non_zero n) {
int i = n.value; // cannot be 0
}
int main() {
bar(non_zero(42));
//bar(non_zero(0)); // compiler error
}
bar is the function that cannot be called with a 0 parameter. 0 can be converted to a pointer but that constructor has no definition. Any other int will pick the other constructor. Though it requires the caller to explicitly construct a non_zero because only one user defined conversion is taken into account.
Note that this only works for a literal 0. There is no error when you pass a 0 to this function:
void moo(int x){
bar(non_zero(x));
}
Thats why it should be considered as a hack. Though, in general it is not possible to trigger a compiler error based on the value of x which is only known at runtime.
If you want to throw an exception, thats a whole different story. You'd simply add a check in the function:
if (i == 0) throw my_custom_exception{"some error message"};
If you are using only MSVC you can also take a look at Structured Annotation Language (SAL). It is described on MSDN.
For your case you might be interested in _In_range_(lb,ub). An example would be:
void f(_In_range_(1,300) int a, _In_range_(1, 2147483647) int b);
Please note that this will not prohibit calling f(0, 0) but code analysis will trigger a warning. That warning will be triggered also in cases where you call f(x,x) and the compiler knows that x is zero.
In the past I liked to use SAL as it makes the interface clearer and can help reveal errors because the compiler can check more semantics. But now with modern C++ und the CppCoreGuidelines I am trying to follow the guidelines and so normally I don't need SAL anymore.
The below given code is taken from LevelDB. I am giving two blocks of code for better understanding. I am unable to understand what is happening.
ThreadState is a structure and I have written here to make it easy for the reader.
struct ThreadState {
int tid; // 0..n-1 when running in n threads
Random rand; // Has different seeds for different threads
Stats stats;
SharedState* shared;
ThreadState(int index)
: tid(index),
rand(1000 + index) {
}
};
Is the marked code below an object instantiation of class Benchmark? What is happening in the marked code below?
void Run() {
PrintHeader();
Open();
const char* benchmarks = FLAGS_benchmarks;
while (benchmarks != NULL) {
{
//code ommitted
}
// Reset parameters that may be overriddden bwlow
***void (Benchmark::*method)(ThreadState*) = NULL;*** // What does this code line mean? // Benchmark is a class.
bool fresh_db = false;
int num_threads = FLAGS_threads;
if (name == Slice("fillseq")) {
fresh_db = true;
method = &Benchmark::WriteSeq;
}
If required, I can give detailed implementation of Benchmark as well.
Thanks a lot for the help!
void (Benchmark::*method)(ThreadState*) = NULL;
// What does this code line mean?
// Benchmark is a class.
The above is a pointer to a member function. Since member functions are not like regular functions (they can only be called on a valid object), you cannot take their address it the same way you would for a free function.
Therefore the above syntax is introduced. It is similar to a regular function pointer except the class specifier Benchmark::. This is essentially the type of the implicit this pointer.
In your case, method is a pointer to a member function that takes ThreadState* as a parameter, and has a void return type. The reason for using it is most probably to simplify the call. First, and based on various parameters, a member function is chosen to be called, and its "address" stored in method. After all the checks are done, there is only a single call to the chosen function via the pointer to member.
Incidentally, &Benchmark::WriteSeq is how the code obtains the "address" of the member function WriteSeq. You must use the address-of operator on the qualified function name.
There are a few legal ways which can we declare a function in C++.
Some of the legal ways are:
void function ();
void function (void);
dataType function (dataType);
and so on...
Recently, I came across a function declaration as such:
void (function) (); //Take note of the braces around the function name
I have never seen somehting like this before, when I tested it in a C++ compiler, it runs without any warning or compilation errors.
My question is: Why is void (function) (); a legal way to decalre a function prototype? Is there any special meaning to declare a function in this way? Or does it just work normally like any other function declaration?
One difference is that enclosing it in parenthesis prevents the function-like macros expansion by the preprocessor. As mentioned in the other answers it makes no difference though to the actual compiler.
For instance:
// somewhere buried deep in a header
#define function(a, b) a + b
// your code
void function() { // this expands the macro and gives compilation error
}
void (function)() { // this does not expand and works as expected
}
This comes in handy for instance when the bright minds behind the Microsoft Visual Studio library decided to provide function-like macros for things like min and max. (There are other ways like #undef to go around this).
Note that object-like macros (e.g. #define function 3 + 4) are still expanded.
The preprocessor is just a dumb text replacement tool (as opposed to the compiler which is just a (smart) text replacement tool). It takes the macro definition and replaces it everywhere. He is not aware of the semantics of what he replaces.
For instance:
// somewhere buried deep in a header
#define function 3 + 2
// your code
void function() {
}
The preprocessor sees the word function and textually replaces it with the string 3 + 2. He is unaware that function is a id-name part of a function declaration and definition. After the preprocess phase there come the actual compile phases. So the compiler actually sees:
// your code
void 3 + 2() {
}
which does not make any sense to him and gives an error.
For function-like macros
// somewhere buried deep in a header
#define function(a, b) a + b
The preprocessor does the same except that it expects two ‘tokens’ enclosed in parenthesis separated by comma (the parameters) and does the replacement. (again no semantics aware):
int d = function(2, 3);
//will be replaced by the preprocessor to:
int d = 2 + 3; // passes compilation phase
void function();
// the preprocessor doesn’t find the arguments for function so it gives an error.
However if it encounters (function) it will not try to expand it (it ignores it). It is just a rule.
it's the same as
void function();
you can declare it as
void ((function)) ();
if you want :)
be careful not to mix this up with the function pointer declaration syntax.
There is nothing special about it, it means exactly the same as the version without parentheses. It is just an artifact of how the syntax is declared. Usually you see the use of parentheses around the function name when a function pointer is declared, e.g.
void (*function_pointer)() = nullptr;
// a function pointer to a function taking and returning void
in contrast to
void *function();
// a function declaration of a function taking void and returning void*
I think it works the same as a normal function because function pointers are declared like: void (*function)() so if you leave out the * then it should be just a function.
It corresponds to the C++ grammar. If to simplify then one of the rules for defining of the declarator looks as
declarator:
(declarator)
So you can write for example
void (function) ();
or
void ( (function) () );
or even the following way
struct A
{
void ( ( function )() const );
};
I think you may find that was:
void (*function) ();
since there is no benefit to using void (function)(); or void (((((function)))))(); for that matter, they're equivalent. If I'm mistaken and it's not a typo, the answer is that you can put as many parentheses around the function name as you like, subject to compiler limitations, as per the code for output6() below.
If I'm not mistaken, that one with the * actually declares a function pointer which can be used to hold a pointer to a function. It does not declare a function at all, just a pointer that can be used to reference a function.
Like an int pointer (for example), the function pointer can point to an arbitrary function, parameters notwhithstanding.
So for example:
#include <iostream>
void (((((output6)))))() { std::cout << 6; }
void output7() { std::cout << 7; }
void output8() { std::cout << 8; }
void (*fn)();
int main() {
fn = &output6; fn();
fn = &output7; fn();
fn = &output8; fn();
std::cout << '\n';
}
would output 678.
I am learning C++ and very new at using classes, and I am getting very confused in trying to use them. I am trying to convert my existing code (which used structs) so that it uses classes - so while I know what I am trying to do I don't know if I'm doing it correctly.
I was told that when using functions from the class, I first need to instantiate an object of the class. So what I have tried (a snippet) in my main function is:
int main()// line 1
{
string message_fr_client = "test"; //line2
msgInfo message_processed; //line 3
message_processed.incMsgClass(message_fr_client); //line 4
if (!message_processed.priority_check(qos_levels, message_processed)) //line 5
cout << "failure: priority level out of bounds\n"; //line 6
return 0; //line 7
}
Could you help me clarify if my following assumptions are correct? The compiler is not showing any error and so I don't know if it is error-free, or if there are ones lurking beneath.
At line 4, is the function incMsgClass being performed on the string message_fr_client and returning the resultant (and modified) message_processed?
At line 5, the function priority_check is being performed on the message_processed and returning a boolean?
In my class definition, I have a function getPath that is meant to modify the value of nodePath - is it just a matter of using message_processed.getPath(/*arguments*/)?
I haven't included the body of the functions because I know they work - I would just like to find out how the class functions interact. Please let me know if I can be clearer - just trying to clear up some confusion here.
Here is my class:
#ifndef clientMsgHandling_H
#define clientMsgHandling_H
#include <list>
#include <map>
#include <queue>
class msgInfo
{
public:
msgInfo();
msgInfo(int, int, int, std::string, std::list<int>);
/*classifying message*/
msgInfo incMsgClass(std::string original_msg);
/*message error checks*/
bool priority_check(int syst_priority, msgInfo msg); //check that message is within qos levels
bool route_check(std::map<std::pair<int, int>, int> route_table, msgInfo msg); //check that route exists
void getPath(msgInfo msg, std::map<std::pair<int, int>, int> route_info, int max_hop);
private:
int source_id;
int dest_id;
int priority;
std::string payload;
std::list<int> nodePath;
};
#endif
While it may compile (and even run), there are a few oddities with the code as shown:-
First off, class methods know which object they are operating on - so your priority_check and route_check methods probably don't need msgInfo as a parameter.,
for example, your old non-class function might be like this
bool priority_check(int p, msgInfo msg)
{
return msg.priority < p;
}
But the new one should look like this:
bool msgInfo::priority_check(int p)
{
return priority < p;
}
Also, incMsgClass is a bit odd, as it's a non-static class method that returns a msgInfo object. It's difficult to tell without understanding what it's supposed to do, but it seems possible that this function should actually be a constructor, rather than a regular method.
One other thing is that you're currently passing a msgInfo by value to those methods. So if the method needed to modify the passed msgInfo, it would not have any effect. It's generally better to pass objects by reference or const reference to other methods. So, back to the previous non-method example, it should really be this.
bool priority_check(int p, const msgInfo &msg)
...
But, as I said, you probably don't need the msgInfo parameters anyway.
At line 4, is the function incMsgClass being performed on the string message_fr_client
Yes
and returning the resultant (and modified) message_processed?
Whatever it's returning, you're ignoring the return value. It can modify the object itself, yes, because the function is not const.
At line 5, the function priority_check is being performed on the message_processed and returning a boolean?
Yes
In my class definition, I have a function getPath that is meant to modify the value of nodePath - is it just a matter of using message_processed.getPath(/arguments/)?
If a member function is intended to modify one of the class members, it's just a matter of not marking that function const
Hard to tell without implementation-details, but here we go:
I. You are passing a std::string as value (C++ is call-by-value by default), so you get a copy of the std::string in your method. If you want to work on the object you passed and manipulate it, use a reference on the object, like
msgInfo incMsgClass(std::string& original_msg); // notice the ampersand
then you can change your signature to
void incMsgClass(std::string& original_msg);
as you don't need to return the std::string you passed.
II. Yes, at least according to your signature
III. Can see a node_path only as a member.
For all your questions, see C++-FAQ.
Your basic assumptions are correct.
message_processed.incMsgClass(message_fr_client); //line 4
This line is not correct. The function you call returns msgInfo which is simply dropped. You should assign it to something. But it is not as it is usually done. You should make it a constructor of msgInfo, like
class msgInfo
{
public:
msgInfo(std::string original_msg);
...
}
Then you could call it like this
msgInfo message_processed(message_fr_client);
That line would create a msgInfo that is already properly initialized.
There is another pattern for creating class instances - static creating function. In your case you could mark incMsgClass static and then call it like
msgInfo message_processed = msgInfo.incMsgClass(message_fr_client);
I seriously doubt you need this pattern here, so I'd advise to move to constructor.
As of other functions, I see no problems there. Just note that all member functions not marked as const can modify the object they are called on. So, you don't need to pass this object explicitly. For functions a pointer to the object they are called on is available by name this. Also the functions can access all class variables as if these variables are global for normal (non-member) functions.
This question already has answers here:
Default value of function parameter
(5 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
What's the place for the default parameter value? Just in function definition, or declaration, or both places?
Default parameter values must appear on the declaration, since that is the only thing that the caller sees.
EDIT: As others point out, you can have the argument on the definition, but I would advise writing all code as if that wasn't true.
You can do either, but never both. Usually you do it at function declaration and then all callers can use that default value. However you can do that at function definition instead and then only those who see the definition will be able to use the default value.
C++ places the default parameter logic in the calling side, this means that if the default value expression cannot be computed from the calling place, then the default value cannot be used.
Other compilation units normally just include the declaration so default value expressions placed in the definition can be used only in the defining compilation unit itself (and after the definition, i.e. after the compiler sees the default value expressions).
The most useful place is in the declaration (.h) so that all users will see it.
Some people like to add the default value expressions in the implementation too (as a comment):
void foo(int x = 42,
int y = 21);
void foo(int x /* = 42 */,
int y /* = 21 */)
{
...
}
However, this means duplication and will add the possibility of having the comment out of sync with the code (what's worse than uncommented code? code with misleading comments!).
Although this is an "old" thread, I still would like to add the following to it:
I've experienced the next case:
In the header file of a class, I had
int SetI2cSlaveAddress( UCHAR addr, bool force );
In the source file of that class, I had
int CI2cHal::SetI2cSlaveAddress( UCHAR addr, bool force = false )
{
...
}
As one can see, I had put the default value of the parameter "force" in the class source file, not in the class header file.
Then I used that function in a derived class as follows (derived class inherited the base class in a public way):
SetI2cSlaveAddress( addr );
assuming it would take the "force" parameter as "false" 'for granted'.
However, the compiler (put in c++11 mode) complained and gave me the following compiler error:
/home/.../mystuff/domoproject/lib/i2cdevs/max6956io.cpp: In member function 'void CMax6956Io::Init(unsigned char, unsigned char, unsigned int)':
/home/.../mystuff/domoproject/lib/i2cdevs/max6956io.cpp:26:30: error: no matching function for call to 'CMax6956Io::SetI2cSlaveAddress(unsigned char&)'
/home/.../mystuff/domoproject/lib/i2cdevs/max6956io.cpp:26:30: note: candidate is:
In file included from /home/geertvc/mystuff/domoproject/lib/i2cdevs/../../include/i2cdevs/max6956io.h:35:0,
from /home/geertvc/mystuff/domoproject/lib/i2cdevs/max6956io.cpp:1:
/home/.../mystuff/domoproject/lib/i2cdevs/../../include/i2chal/i2chal.h:65:9: note: int CI2cHal::SetI2cSlaveAddress(unsigned char, bool)
/home/.../mystuff/domoproject/lib/i2cdevs/../../include/i2chal/i2chal.h:65:9: note: candidate expects 2 arguments, 1 provided
make[2]: *** [lib/i2cdevs/CMakeFiles/i2cdevs.dir/max6956io.cpp.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [lib/i2cdevs/CMakeFiles/i2cdevs.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2
But when I added the default parameter in the header file of the base class:
int SetI2cSlaveAddress( UCHAR addr, bool force = false );
and removed it from the source file of the base class:
int CI2cHal::SetI2cSlaveAddress( UCHAR addr, bool force )
then the compiler was happy and all code worked as expected (I could give one or two parameters to the function SetI2cSlaveAddress())!
So, not only for the user of a class it's important to put the default value of a parameter in the header file, also compiling and functional wise it apparently seems to be a must!
If the functions are exposed - non-member, public or protected - then the caller should know about them, and the default values must be in the header.
If the functions are private and out-of-line, then it does make sense to put the defaults in the implementation file because that allows changes that don't trigger client recompilation (a sometimes serious issue for low-level libraries shared in enterprise scale development). That said, it is definitely potentially confusing, and there is documentation value in presenting the API in a more intuitive way in the header, so pick your compromise - though consistency's the main thing when there's no compelling reason either way.
One more point I haven't found anyone mentioned:
If you have virtual method, each declaration can have its own default value!
It depends on the interface you are calling which value will be used.
Example on ideone
struct iface
{
virtual void test(int a = 0) { std::cout << a; }
};
struct impl : public iface
{
virtual void test(int a = 5) override { std::cout << a; }
};
int main()
{
impl d;
d.test();
iface* a = &d;
a->test();
}
It prints 50
I strongly discourage you to use it like this
the declaration is generally the most 'useful', but that depends on how you want to use the class.
both is not valid.
Good question...
I find that coders typically use the declaration to declare defaults. I've been held to one way (or warned) or the other too based on the compiler
void testFunct(int nVal1, int nVal2=500);
void testFunct(int nVal1, int nVal2)
{
using namespace std;
cout << nVal1 << << nVal2 << endl;
}
You may do in either (according to standard), but remember, if your code is seeing the declaration without default argument(s) before the definition that contains default argument, then compilation error can come.
For example, if you include header containing function declaration without default argument list, thus compiler will look for that prototype as it is unaware of your default argument values and hence prototype won't match.
If you are putting function with default argument in definition, then include that file but I won't suggest that.
Adding one more point. Function declarations with default argument should be ordered from right to left and from top to bottom.
For example in the below function declaration if you change the declaration order then the compiler gives you a missing default parameter error. Reason the compiler allows you to separate the function declaration with default argument within the same scope but it should be in order from RIGHT to LEFT (default arguments) and from TOP to BOTTOM(order of function declaration default argument).
//declaration
void function(char const *msg, bool three, bool two, bool one = false);
void function(char const *msg, bool three = true, bool two, bool one); // Error
void function(char const *msg, bool three, bool two = true, bool one); // OK
//void function(char const *msg, bool three = true, bool two, bool one); // OK
int main() {
function("Using only one Default Argument", false, true);
function("Using Two Default Arguments", false);
function("Using Three Default Arguments");
return 0;
}
//definition
void function(char const *msg, bool three, bool two, bool one ) {
std::cout<<msg<<" "<<three<<" "<<two<<" "<<one<<std::endl;
}