Ran into an interesting issue today and am trying to understand why.
Consider the following:
class Base
{
public:
Base(){}
~Base(){}
static void function1(){}
void function2()
{
int function1;
function1 = 0;
function1(); //<-compiler error
function1 = 1;
}
};
I am getting the following error:
expression preceding parentheses of apparent call must have (pointer-to-) function type
I think I understand why I am getting this error:
When function1 is called by itself outside of function2(), it is actually a function pointer to function1().
Inside the scope of function2, when int function1 is declared, 'function1 the variable' shadows 'function1 the function pointer'.
When function1() is called inside function2(), it is assuming function1 is the variable and is giving an error.
This is fixed by calling Base::function1(); inside function2().
My question is this: Why doesn't the compiler give an error when declaring int function1;? Shouldn't this not be allowed?
The local variable overwrites the designator for the method in the local block. Try this->function1() to call it nevertheless.
Or better yet, rename the one or the other to help people reading your code avoiding confusion (and this includes your future yourself).
To answer your question: "Should this be allowed":
In c++ you can have different entities with the same name if they exist in different scopes (like in your example). This is very useful feature in general, because it allows you to use whatever names you like for your entities assuming that you provide them in scope e.g. in namespace. Said that, compiler needs some algorithm to select entity when it sees name in code. In c++ standard process of matching name to declaration is called 'name lookup'. You can see description of this algorithm e.g. here cppreference or directly in standard draft.
Related
I have couple questions regarding some C++ rules.
Why am I able to call a function/method from outside the class in the namespace when I include the return type? (look at the namespace test2::testclass2 in the code below) i.e. this works:
bool b = testclass1::foo<int>(2);
whereas this doesn't: - (it doesn't even compile - compiler throws that this is function redeclaration)
testclass1::foo<int>(2);
C++ complains that it is a function redeclaration. Is that so?
This line:
bool b = testclass1::foo<int>(2);
gets called first before anything else. Is this because static methods get created always first before anything else in C++?
Where can I find those rules? I have a few C++ books at home, so if someone would be kind enough to either point out a book (and chapter or page) or direct me to a website I would greatly appreciate it.
Here below is the sample (partial) code that I tested at home with Visual Studio 2008:
class testclass1
{
public:
testclass1(void);
~testclass1(void);
template<class A> static bool foo(int i)
{
std::cout <<"in static foo";
return true;
}
};
namespace test2
{
class testclass2
{
public:
testclass2(void);
~testclass2(void);
};
bool b = testclass1::foo<int>(2);
}
EDIT:
A few people mentioned that I need to call this inside the function and this will work without any problem.
I understand that; the only reason I asked this question is because I saw this code somewhere (in someone's elses project) and was wondering how and why this works. Since I never really seen anyone doing it before.
Also, this is used (in multiple places) as a way to call and instantiate a large number of classes like this via those function calls (that are outside). They get called first before anything else is instantiated.
C++ is not Python. You write statements in functions and execution starts from the main method. The reason bool b = ... happens to work is that it's defining the global variable b and the function call is merely the initialization expression.
Definitions can exist outside functions while other statements can only exist inside a function body.
Why am I able to call a function/method from outside the class in the namespace when I include the return type? (look at the namespace test2::testclass2)
Your declaration of b is not inside a function, so you are declaring a global variable. If you were inside a function's scope, your second statement would work, but outside a function it makes no sense.
This also answers your second question.
Of course, you wouldn't be allowed to call it this way (i.e. not as a method of an object) if it weren't a static member function.
You can find the rules on e.g. Koenig lookup and template in the standard documentation -- good luck with navigating that! You're not mentioning which compiler you are testing, but I'm not entirely sure it's compliant!
As Mehrdad points out, you're declaring and initializing a global variable within the test2 namespace: this has nothing to do with static methods.
if you write this inside a function like below then it works without a problem. As mentioned above, you need to call these functions from within a function unless you are using the function to initialize a global variable ...
int main()
{
testclass1::foo<int>(2);
return 0;
}
1. First, a helpful correction: you said "...when I include the return type". I think you might be misunderstanding what the <int> part of testclass1::foo<int>(2) does. It doesn't (necessarily) specify the return type, it just provides a value for the template argument "A".
You could have chosen to use A as the return type, but you have the return type hard-coded to "bool".
Basically, for the function as you have written it you will always need to have the <> on it in order to call it. C++ does allow you to omit the <args> off the function when the type can be deduced from the function arguments; in order to get it to do that you have to use the type argument A in your function arguments. For instance if you declared the function this way instead then you could call it without the <>:
template<class A> static bool foo(A i);
In which case it you could call "foo(2)" and it would deduce A to be "int" from the number two.
On the other hand there isn't any way to make it deduce anything based on what you assign the function to. For template argument deduction it only looks at the arguments to the function, not what is done with the result of calling the function. So in:
bool b = testclass1::foo(2);
There is no way to get it to deduce "bool" from that, not even if you made A the return type.
So why doesn't the compiler just tell you "you needed to use <> on the function"? Even though you declared foo once as a template function, you could have also overloaded it with a non-template version too. So the compiler doesn't just automatically assume that you're trying to call a template function when you leave the <> off the call. Unfortunately having NOT assumed you were calling template-foo and not seeing any other declaration for foo, the compiler then falls back on an old C style rule where for a function that takes an int and returns an int, in a very old dialect of C you didn't need to declare that kind of before using it. So the compiler assumed THAT was what you wanted - but then it notices that template-foo and old-crufty-C-foo both take an int parameter, and realizes it wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them. So then it says you can't declare foo. This is why C++ compilers are notorious for giving bad error messages - by the time the error is reported the compiler may have gone completely off the rails and be talking about something that is three or four levels removed from your actual code!
2. Yes you're exactly right.
3. I find that the C++ references and whitepapers that IBM makes available online are the most informative. Here's a link to the section about templates: C++ Templates
Sometimes I write code like the following
struct Bob
{
Bob() {}
};
int main()
{
Bob b();
}
What I wanted to do is create an object b, using Bob's default constructor. To fix it, I have to remove the brackets after b. It turns out the compiler interprets the line as a function prototype otherwise!
Ok, I can understand that to follow the rule. But why can you put a function prototype inside a function anyway? What is the purpose?
Presumably because in C that syntax had no other possible meaning (no member functions or constructors) so they specified it to be a function declaration.
Then when C++ inherited the functionality from C they couldn't change the meaning of such a construct without risking the breakage of existing code.
If you're asking why they allow local function-declarations at all, that may be because they wanted to allow for functions to be scoped as closely to use as possible, or it may just be lost to time.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
name hiding and fragile base problem
I'm familiar with the rules involving member function hiding. Basically, a derived class with a function that has the same name as a base class function doesn't actually overload the base class function - it completely hides it.
struct Base
{
void foo(int x) const
{
}
};
struct Derived : public Base
{
void foo(const std::string& s) { }
};
int main()
{
Derived d;
d.foo("abc");
d.foo(123); // Will not compile! Base::foo is hidden!
}
So, you can get around this with a using declaration. But my question is, what is the reason for base class function hiding? Is this a "feature" or just a "mistake" by the standards committee? Is there some technical reason why the compiler can't look in the Base class for matching overloads when it doesn't find a match for d.foo(123)?
Name lookup works by looking in the current scope for matching names, if nothing is found then it looks in the enclosing scope, if nothing is found it looks in the enclosing scope, etc. until reaching the global namespace.
This isn't specific to classes, you get exactly the same name hiding here:
#include <iostream>
namespace outer
{
void foo(char c) { std::cout << "outer\n"; }
namespace inner
{
void foo(int i) { std::cout << "inner\n"; }
void bar() { foo('c'); }
}
}
int main()
{
outer::inner::bar();
}
Although outer::foo(char) is a better match for the call foo('c') name lookup stops after finding outer::inner::foo(int) (i.e. outer::foo(char) is hidden) and so the program prints inner.
If member function name weren't hidden that would mean name lookup in class scope behaved differently to non-class scope, which would be inconsistent and confusing, and make C++ even harder to learn.
So there's no technical reason the name lookup rules couldn't be changed, but they'd have to be changed for member functions and other types of name lookup, it would make compilers slower because they'd have to continue searching for names even after finding matching names in the current scope. Sensibly, if there's a name in the current scope it's probably the one you wanted. A call in a scope A probably wants to find names in that scope, e.g. if two functions are in the same namespace they're probably related (part of the same module or library) and so if one uses the name of the other it probably means to call the one in the same scope. If that's not what you want then use explicit qualification or a using declaration to tell the compiler the other name should be visible in that scope.
Is this a "feature" or just a "mistake" by the standards committee?
It's definitely not a mistake, since it's clearly stipulated in the standard. It's a feature.
Is there some technical reason why the compiler can't look in the Base class for matching overloads when it doesn't find a match for d.foo(123)?
Technically, a compiler could look in the base class. Technically. But if it did, it would break the rules set by the standard.
But my question is, what is the reason for base class function hiding?
Unless someone from the committee comes with an answer, I think we can only speculate. Basically, there were two options:
if I declare a function with the same name in a derived class, keep the base class's functions with the same name directly accessible through a derived class
don't
It could have been determined by flipping a coin (...ok, maybe not).
In general, what are the reasons for wanting a function with the same name as that of a base class? There's different functionality - where you'd more likely use polymorphism instead. For handling different cases (different parameters), and if these cases aren't present in the base class, a strategy pattern might be more appropriate to handle the job. So most likely function hiding comes in effect when you actually do want to hide the function. You're not happy with the base class implementation so you provide your own, with the option of using using, but only when you want to.
I think it's just a mechanism to make you think twice before having a function with the same name & different signature.
I believe #Lol4t0 is pretty much correct, but I'd state things much more strongly. If you allowed this, you'd end up with two possibilities: either make a lot of other changes throughout almost the entirety of the language, or else you end up with something almost completely broken.
The other changes you'd make to allow this to work would be to completely revamp how overloading is done -- you'd have to change at least the order of the steps that were taken, and probably the details of the steps themselves. Right now, the compiler looks up the name, then forms an overload set, resolves the overload, then checks access to the chosen overload.
To make this work even sort of well, you'd pretty much have to change that to check access first, and only add accessible functions to the overload set. With that, at least the example in #Lol4t0's answer could continue to compile, because Base::foo would never be added to the overload set.
That still means, however, that adding to the interface of the base class could cause serious problems. If Base didn't originally contain foo, and a public foo were added, then the call in main to d.foo() would suddenly do something entirely different, and (again) it would be entirely outside the control of whoever wrote Derived.
To cure that, you'd just about have to make a fairly fundamental change in the rules: prohibit implicit conversions of function arguments. Along with that, you'd change overload resolution so in case of a tie, the most derived/most local version of a function was favored over a less derived/outer scope. With those rules, the call to d.foo(5.0) could never resolve to Derived::foo(int) in the first place.
That, however, would only leave two possibilities: either calls to free functions would have different rules than calls to member functions (implicit conversions allowed only for free functions) or else all compatibility with C would be discarded entirely (i.e., also prohibit implicit conversions in all function arguments, which would break huge amounts of existing code).
To summarize: to change this without breaking the language entirely, you'd have to make quite a few other changes as well. It would almost certainly be possible to create a language that worked that way, but by the time you were done it wouldn't be C++ with one minor change -- it would be an entirely different language that wasn't much like C++ or C, or much of anything else.
I can only propose, that this decision was made to make things simpler.
Imagine, that derived function will overload base one. Then, does the following code should generate compilation error, or use Deriveds function?
struct Base
{
private:
void foo(float);
}
struct Derived: public Base
{
public:
void foo(int);
}
int main()
{
Derived d;
d.foo(5.0f);
}
According to existing behavior of overloads this should generate error.
Now imagine, in the first version Base had no foo(float). In second version it appears. Now changing the realization of base class breaks interface of derived.
If you are developer of Derived and cannot influence developers of Base and a lot of clients use your interface, you are in a bad situation now.
I came across a question regarding writing a code to determine unused functions in C++. We can use different data structures to determine unused functions. But before that, we need to parse the code. I have question related to parsing part, how we can differentiate functions declaration and definition and function-calls?
Like,
//function declaration without argument
fun1 ();
//function definition
fun1 () {
// code goes here
}
main () {
fun1 ();
}
Above declaration and call is looks same where as definition part is little bit different from declaration and call.
Other than above scenario, there are multiple scenario for calling a function and functions scope, like two classes having function with same name one function get called within member function (i.e. no explicit calling object required) OR function call using object so, need to understand object's type first to determine which function is actually called.
How can parsing implemented efficiently? How many parsing will required in above scenario?
This is how you can distinguish them:
//function definition
return_type fun1 (args) {
// code goes here
}
Note that function definition has a "return type" before the function name.
Also, note that a function declaration looks exactly the same as its definition. You don't actually need to distinguish them until you see either ; or {. That is the point in which you make the decision whether its a declaration or definition. In your particular application, you don't really care about it because you don't care what the function actually does.
Unfortunately for you, C++ is complicated. To determine which functions are useless, you actually need at least a basic semantic analysis. This includes at least the type system.
What is worse, is that some function may not necessarily be called directly, but through a virtual function. So your static analysis of the code shows only the parent's function getting called, while in reality it's the child's.
I have couple questions regarding some C++ rules.
Why am I able to call a function/method from outside the class in the namespace when I include the return type? (look at the namespace test2::testclass2 in the code below) i.e. this works:
bool b = testclass1::foo<int>(2);
whereas this doesn't: - (it doesn't even compile - compiler throws that this is function redeclaration)
testclass1::foo<int>(2);
C++ complains that it is a function redeclaration. Is that so?
This line:
bool b = testclass1::foo<int>(2);
gets called first before anything else. Is this because static methods get created always first before anything else in C++?
Where can I find those rules? I have a few C++ books at home, so if someone would be kind enough to either point out a book (and chapter or page) or direct me to a website I would greatly appreciate it.
Here below is the sample (partial) code that I tested at home with Visual Studio 2008:
class testclass1
{
public:
testclass1(void);
~testclass1(void);
template<class A> static bool foo(int i)
{
std::cout <<"in static foo";
return true;
}
};
namespace test2
{
class testclass2
{
public:
testclass2(void);
~testclass2(void);
};
bool b = testclass1::foo<int>(2);
}
EDIT:
A few people mentioned that I need to call this inside the function and this will work without any problem.
I understand that; the only reason I asked this question is because I saw this code somewhere (in someone's elses project) and was wondering how and why this works. Since I never really seen anyone doing it before.
Also, this is used (in multiple places) as a way to call and instantiate a large number of classes like this via those function calls (that are outside). They get called first before anything else is instantiated.
C++ is not Python. You write statements in functions and execution starts from the main method. The reason bool b = ... happens to work is that it's defining the global variable b and the function call is merely the initialization expression.
Definitions can exist outside functions while other statements can only exist inside a function body.
Why am I able to call a function/method from outside the class in the namespace when I include the return type? (look at the namespace test2::testclass2)
Your declaration of b is not inside a function, so you are declaring a global variable. If you were inside a function's scope, your second statement would work, but outside a function it makes no sense.
This also answers your second question.
Of course, you wouldn't be allowed to call it this way (i.e. not as a method of an object) if it weren't a static member function.
You can find the rules on e.g. Koenig lookup and template in the standard documentation -- good luck with navigating that! You're not mentioning which compiler you are testing, but I'm not entirely sure it's compliant!
As Mehrdad points out, you're declaring and initializing a global variable within the test2 namespace: this has nothing to do with static methods.
if you write this inside a function like below then it works without a problem. As mentioned above, you need to call these functions from within a function unless you are using the function to initialize a global variable ...
int main()
{
testclass1::foo<int>(2);
return 0;
}
1. First, a helpful correction: you said "...when I include the return type". I think you might be misunderstanding what the <int> part of testclass1::foo<int>(2) does. It doesn't (necessarily) specify the return type, it just provides a value for the template argument "A".
You could have chosen to use A as the return type, but you have the return type hard-coded to "bool".
Basically, for the function as you have written it you will always need to have the <> on it in order to call it. C++ does allow you to omit the <args> off the function when the type can be deduced from the function arguments; in order to get it to do that you have to use the type argument A in your function arguments. For instance if you declared the function this way instead then you could call it without the <>:
template<class A> static bool foo(A i);
In which case it you could call "foo(2)" and it would deduce A to be "int" from the number two.
On the other hand there isn't any way to make it deduce anything based on what you assign the function to. For template argument deduction it only looks at the arguments to the function, not what is done with the result of calling the function. So in:
bool b = testclass1::foo(2);
There is no way to get it to deduce "bool" from that, not even if you made A the return type.
So why doesn't the compiler just tell you "you needed to use <> on the function"? Even though you declared foo once as a template function, you could have also overloaded it with a non-template version too. So the compiler doesn't just automatically assume that you're trying to call a template function when you leave the <> off the call. Unfortunately having NOT assumed you were calling template-foo and not seeing any other declaration for foo, the compiler then falls back on an old C style rule where for a function that takes an int and returns an int, in a very old dialect of C you didn't need to declare that kind of before using it. So the compiler assumed THAT was what you wanted - but then it notices that template-foo and old-crufty-C-foo both take an int parameter, and realizes it wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them. So then it says you can't declare foo. This is why C++ compilers are notorious for giving bad error messages - by the time the error is reported the compiler may have gone completely off the rails and be talking about something that is three or four levels removed from your actual code!
2. Yes you're exactly right.
3. I find that the C++ references and whitepapers that IBM makes available online are the most informative. Here's a link to the section about templates: C++ Templates