I'm currently writing the implementation file of a program I'm doing. I included the header file in it which is why you don't see as much as you would usually see
This is the program in which all the functions you see are included in a class called "Body". The member functions are public except for the std::istream which is considered "friend" and the variables are private
I'm trying to understand why I am getting this error:
"passing const Body as 'this' argument of double Body::getX() discards qualifiers"
This error is pointing to my distanceTo function that I wrote. I kind of understand what the error message is saying but I really need the passing argument of distantTo function to be constant. Any way of fixing this?
This is the overall view of my program:
#include "Body.h"
#include <cmath>
#include <vector>
#include <fstream>
Body::Body(std::string _name, double _mass, double _x,
double _y, double _vx, double _vy)
{
name = _name;
mass = _mass;
x = _x;
y = _y;
vx = _vx;
vy = _vy;
}
double Body::getX()
{
return x;
}
double Body::getY()
{
return y;
}
double Body::getVX()
{
return vx;
}
double Body::getVY()
{
return vy;
}
double Body::getMass()
{
return mass;
}
void Body::setX(double _x)
{
x = _x;
}
void Body::setY(double _y)
{
y = _y;
}
void Body::setVX(double _vx)
{
vx = _vx;
}
void Body::setVY(double _vy)
{
vy = _vy;
}
void Body::draw(Canvas &canvas)
{
canvas.DrawCircle(getX(), getY(), 10);
canvas.DrawText(getX()+2, getY(), name);
}
istream &Body::operator>>(std::istream &input, Body &body)
{
input >> body.name >> body.mass >> body.x >> body.y >> body.vx >> body.vy;
return input;
}
double Body::distanceTo(const Body &other)
{
double tx = x-other.getX();
double ty = y-other.getY();
double ans = sqrt(tx*tx + ty *ty);
return ans;
}
double Body::forceX(double G, const Body &body)
{
double d = distanceTo(body);
double d3=d*d*d;
double tx = x - getX();
double dx= sqrt( tx * tx );
double fx = G * ((mass * getMass() * dx) / d3);
return fx;
}
double Body::forceY(double G, const Body &body)
{
double d = distanceTo(body);
double d3=d*d*d;
double ty = y - getX();
double dy= sqrt( ty * ty );
double fy = G * ((mass * getMass() * dy) / d3);
return fy;
}
Private data:
std::string name;
double x, y;
double vx, vy;
double mass;
Make your get member functions constant, nothing changes in these functions and will allow your distance function to work as expected
double getX() const;
double getY() const;
To clarify, as chris pointed out in the comments you cannot call a non-const function with a constant object. You promised the compiler the object would not change what so ever, so you need to provide constant functions to make the compiler happy.
Related
I am experimenting with lambda functions and managed to recreate a "get" functionality in C++. I can get the return value of a function without using parentheses. This is an example class, where I implement this:
using namespace std;
struct Vector2 {
float x;
float y;
float length = [&]()-> float {return sqrt(x * x + y * y); }();
float angle = [&]()-> float {return atan2(y, x); }();
Vector2() : x(0), y(0) {}
Vector2(float a, float b) : x(a), y(b) {}
~Vector2() {}
Vector2(Vector2& other) : x(other.x), y(other.y) {}
Vector2(Vector2&& other) = delete;
void operator =(Vector2&& other) noexcept{
x = other.x;
y = other.y;
}
};
int main()
{
Vector2 vec = Vector2(10, 17);
printf("%f\n%f\n%f\n%f\n", vec.x, vec.y, vec.length, vec.angle);
}
However, I am currently trying to also recreate the "set" functionality that C# has. But I'm failing. I tried to add this:
void angle = [&](float a)->void {
float l = length;
x = cos(a) * l;
y = sin(a) * l;
};
But am getting "Incomplete type is not allowed" error. I'm not sure if that's how it should look, even if I wasn't getting the error. Is it even possible to recreate the "set" functionality C# has in C++?
I know that I can just use a method SetAngle(float a){...}, but that's not really the point.
TL;DR: Don't
What you have isn't a getter, it's just a normal data member that's calculated once when the object is initialized.
In general, C++ doesn't support C#-style properties. The usual C++-style solution is to just use a pair of member functions (and maybe a data member, if you need to save the value separately), i.e.
struct Vector2 {
// ...
float length() const { return sqrt(x * x + y * y); }
void length(float l) {
float angle = angle();
float new_x = l * cos(angle);
float new_y = l * sin(angle);
x = new_x;
y = new_y;
}
// ...
};
You can get something close to a C#-style property, but you'll always run into edge-cases where they don't work perfectly. For example, here's something that will work in many cases:
template <typename T>
class Property
{
private:
std::function<T()> getter_;
std::function<void(const T&)> setter_;
public:
Property(std::function<T()> getter, std::function<void(const T&)> setter)
: getter_{getter},
setter_{setter}
{}
operator T()
{
return getter_();
}
const T& operator=(const T& val)
{
setter_(val);
return val;
}
};
struct Vector2
{
float x;
float y;
Property<float> length{
[this]() { return sqrt(x * x + y * y); },
[this](float l) {
float new_x = l * cos(angle);
float new_y = l * sin(angle);
x = new_x;
y = new_y;
}
}
Property<float> angle{
[this]() { return atan2(y, x); },
[this](float a) {
float l = length;
x = cos(a) * l;
y = sin(a) * l;
}
}
// ...
};
int main() {
Vector2 v;
v.x = 1;
v.y = 1;
v.angle = std::numbers::pi / 2;
std::cout << "(" << v.x << ", " << v.y << ")\n";
}
But this still falls apart in the edge cases, especially when you mix it with templates and/or auto type-deduction. For instance:
Vector2 v;
v.x = 1;
v.y = 1;
auto old_angle = v.angle;
v.angle = std::numbers::pi / 2;
// oops, this prints pi/2, not pi/4 like you probably expected
// because old_angle isn't a float, it's a Property<float> that
// references v
std::cout << old_angle << '\n';
Note also that there's a bug here. Consider this:
int main() {
Vector2 v1;
v1.x = 1;
v1.y = 1;
Vector2 v2 = v1;
v2.angle = std::numbers::pi / 2;
// Oops, assigning to v2.angle modified v1
std::cout << "(" << v1.x << ", " << v1.y << ")\n";
}
You could work around these issues by making Property non-copyable, but then you force any class that uses it to implement a custom copy-constructor. Also, while that would make the auto case "safe", it does so by turning it into a compile error. Still not ideal.
I agree with Miles. This is not the greatest idea, because it's unnatural for C++ developers, and you should write code that is first and foremost easy to read.
However, as an engineering challenge, here's a possible implementation:
#include <math.h>
#include <iostream>
template <typename T>
class Member
{
public:
operator T() const { return _value; }
void operator =(const T& value) const { _value = value; } void operator =(T&& value) { _value = std::move(value); }
private:
T _value;
};
class Angle
{
public:
Angle(const Member<float>& x, const Member<float>& y) :
_x(x), _y(y) {}
operator float() const { return atan2(_y, _x); }
private:
const Member<float>& _x, _y;
};
class Obj
{
public:
Member<float> x, y;
Angle angle;
Obj() : angle(this->x, this->y) {}
};
int main()
{
Obj o;
o.x = 3;
o.y = 5;
std::cout << o.x << ", " << o.y << " -> " << o.angle << std::endl;
}
While other solutions also seem to be possible, this one seems to be the most elegant :P
using namespace std;
struct Vector2 {
float x;
float y;
float init_length = [&]()-> float {return sqrt(x * x + y * y); }();
float init_angle = [&]()-> float {return atan2(y, x); }();
__declspec(property(get = GetAngle, put = SetAngle)) float angle;
__declspec(property(get = GetLength, put = SetLength)) float length;
Vector2() : x(0), y(0) {}
Vector2(float a, float b) : x(a), y(b) {}
~Vector2() {}
Vector2(Vector2& other) : x(other.x), y(other.y) {}
Vector2(Vector2&& other) = delete;
void operator =(Vector2&& other) = delete;
void Display() {
printf("%f\n%f\n%f\n%f\n\n", x, y, length, angle);
}
float GetLength() {
return sqrt(x * x + y * y);
}
float GetAngle() {
return atan2(y, x);
}
void SetLength(float l) {
float a = GetAngle();
x = cos(a) * l;
y = sin(a) * l;
}
void SetAngle(float a) {
float l = GetLength();
x = cos(a) * l;
y = sin(a) * l;
}
};
int main()
{
Vector2 vec = Vector2(10, 17);
vec.Display();
vec.length = 5;
vec.Display();
}
To start off with, I'll mention I come mainly from a Java background. I do have exposure with C and understand most concepts behind C++. I'm trying to help myself learn more about the language and can't seem to figure out headers. I understand why to use them in addition to cpp files and all of that. My problem is trying to actually manage working with them. For example, defining a Vector3 header with private float variables and then overload operating. My problem comes in when I attempt to define the constructor and methods in the cpp file. I can't seem to figure out how to get access to the private variables without specifically defining the functions and the constructor in the header, which more or less leads me to believe I don't need both a header and cpp file in this instance.
Here's how I've defined the header file currently (which works, but isn't undefined as it should be):
#pragma once
#ifndef __Vector_3_H__
#define __Vector_3_H__
namespace VectorMath {
class Vector3 {
public:
Vector3(float x, float y, float z) {
this->x = x;
this->y = y;
this->z = z;
}
Vector3 operator+(Vector3 vector) {
return Vector3(x + vector.x, y + vector.y, z + vector.z);
}
Vector3 operator-(Vector3 vector) {
return Vector3(x - vector.x, y - vector.y, z - vector.z);
}
Vector3 operator*(Vector3 vector) {
return Vector3(x * vector.x, y * vector.y, z * vector.z);
}
Vector3 operator/(Vector3 vector) {
return Vector3(x / vector.x, y / vector.y, z / vector.z);
}
float getX() {
return x;
}
float getY() {
return y;
}
float getZ() {
return z;
}
private:
float x;
float y;
float z;
};
}
#endif
It needs to look more like this instead:
Vector_3.h:
#ifndef Vector_3_H
#define Vector_3_H
#pragma once
namespace VectorMath {
class Vector3 {
public:
Vector3(float x, float y, float z);
Vector3 operator+(Vector3 vector);
Vector3 operator-(Vector3 vector);
Vector3 operator*(Vector3 vector);
Vector3 operator/(Vector3 vector);
float getX();
float getY();
float getZ();
private:
float x;
float y;
float z;
};
}
#endif
Vector_3.cpp:
#include "Vector_3.h"
namespace VectorMath {
Vector3::Vector3(float x, float y, float z) {
this->x = x;
this->y = y;
this->z = z;
}
Vector3 Vector3::operator+(Vector3 vector) {
return Vector3(x + vector.x, y + vector.y, z + vector.z);
}
Vector3 Vector3::operator-(Vector3 vector) {
return Vector3(x - vector.x, y - vector.y, z - vector.z);
}
Vector3 Vector3::operator*(Vector3 vector) {
return Vector3(x * vector.x, y * vector.y, z * vector.z);
}
Vector3 Vector3::operator/(Vector3 vector) {
return Vector3(x / vector.x, y / vector.y, z / vector.z);
}
float Vector3::getX() {
return x;
}
float Vector3::getY() {
return y;
}
float Vector3::getZ() {
return z;
}
}
If you want to use a cpp file for your constructor you should write
// File Vector3.cpp
#include "Vector3.h"
namespace VectorMath {
Vector3::Vector3 (float x, float y, float z)
{
this->x=x;
//...
}
The addition should be implemented as follows if you keep it in the same namespace
Vector3 Vector3::operator+(const Vector3& v)
{
return Vector3 (x+v.x,y+v.y,z+v.z);
}
}
If you want to move the implementations of member functions away from the header file, you still need to declare them in the definition of the class. For example:
// Vector1.h
#pragma once
#ifndef VectorMath_Vector1_H
#define VectorMath_Vector1_H
namespace VectorMath {
class Vector1 {
public: // Methods:
// This is a definition for a default constructor:
Vector1() noexcept : m_x(0) {}
// This is a declaration for another constructor:
Vector1(float x) noexcept;
// This is a declaration of a member function:
Vector1 operator+(Vector1 const & rhs) const noexcept;
private: // Fields:
float m_x;
}; // class Vector1
} // namespace VectorMath {
#endif // VectorMath_Vector1_H
// Vector1.cpp
#include "Vector1.h"
namespace VectorMath {
// Definition of the other constructor:
Vector1::Vector1(float x) noexcept
: m_x(x)
{}
// Definition of the binary + operator:
Vector1 Vector1::operator+(Vector1 const & rhs) const noexcept
{ return m_x + rhs.m_x; }
} // namespace VectorMath {
I am learning OpenGL w/ C++. I am building the asteroids game as an exercise. I'm not quite sure how to override the constructors:
projectile.h
class projectile
{
protected:
float x;
float y;
public:
projectile();
projectile(float, float);
float get_x() const;
float get_y() const;
void move();
};
projectile.cpp
projectile::projectile()
{
x = 0.0f;
y = 0.0f;
}
projectile::projectile(float X, float Y)
{
x = X;
y = Y;
}
float projectile::get_x() const
{
return x;
}
float projectile::get_y() const
{
return y;
}
void projectile::move()
{
x += 0.5f;
y += 0.5f;
}
asteroid.h
#include "projectile.h"
class asteroid : public projectile
{
float radius;
public:
asteroid();
asteroid(float X, float Y);
float get_radius();
};
main.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include "asteroid.h"
using namespace std;
int main()
{
asteroid a(1.0f, 2.0f);
cout << a.get_x() << endl;
cout << a.get_y() << endl;
}
error I'm getting:
main.cpp:(.text+0x20): undefined reference to `asteroid::asteroid(float, float)'
You can use the : syntax to call the parent's constructor:
asteroid(float X, float Y) : projectile (x ,y);
Ok, just figured it out.
I actually don't have asteroid constructors defined because I thought they would inherit. But I think I have to do the following in asteroid.h:
asteroid(float X, float Y) : projectile(X, Y){];
You need a asteroid.cpp.
Even though inheriting from projectile, for non-default constructors (i.e., asteroid(float,float)), you still need to define the child class constructor.
You'll also need to define get_radius, as it's not defined in your base class.
Here's how that might look (I've taken the liberty of passing values for radius into both ctors):
#include "asteroid.h"
asteroid::asteroid(float r)
: projectile()
{
radius = r;
}
asteroid::asteroid(float x, float y, float r)
: projectile(x, y)
{
radius = r;
}
float asteroid::get_radius()
{
return radius;
}
For example, we have this class:
class Coord
{
double x;
double y;
double z;
public:
Coord() { x = y = z = 0; }
void set(double xx, double yy, double zz)
{
x = xx;
y = yy;
z = zz;
}
void set_x(double xx) { x = xx; }
void set_y(double yy) { y = yy; }
void set_z(double zz) { z = zz; }
double get_x() { return x; }
double get_y() { return y; }
double get_z() { return z; }
};
On these 7 methods we can set and get x,y and z of a coordinate. I am interested in create less methods set() and get() where I can call something like that:
int main()
{
Coord c;
c.set_x(5); /* only set x */
c.set_y(6); /* or y */
c.set_z(7); /* or z */
c.set(1,2,5); /* or setting x, y and z */
c.get_x(); /* only get x */
c.get_y(); /* or y */
c.get_z(); /* or z */
}
If the Coord class is that simple, it could also be a struct.
Anyway you can write something like:
class Coord
{
public:
enum xyz {x = 0, y, z};
Coord() : vec{x, y, z} {}
template<xyz C> void set(double v) { vec[C] = v; }
template<xyz C> double get() const { return vec[C]; }
void set(double xx, double yy, double zz)
{
set<Coord::x>(xx);
set<Coord::y>(yy);
set<Coord::z>(zz);
}
private:
double vec[z + 1];
};
and use the class this way:
Coord c;
c.set<Coord::x>(5); /* only set x */
c.set<Coord::y>(6); /* or y */
c.set<Coord::z>(7); /* or z */
c.set(1,2,5); /* or setting x, y and z */
c.get<Coord::x>(); /* only get x */
c.get<Coord::y>(); /* or y */
c.get<Coord::z>(); /* or z */
getters and setters are meant to protect your data and provide encapsulation.
For example they allow you to add side effects to getting and setting operations (such as writing to a log), or allow you to catch invalid values early before they cause horrible problems later (For example preventing values greater than n being set).
Here's a brief and contrived setter example:
void set_x(int x)
{
// prevent an invalid value for x
if( x > 11 ) x = 11;
// set x
this.x = x;
// log the operation
log("user set x to {0}", x);
}
Assuming your c.set.x(5) example is not using some whacky preprocessor macros, it would require that the Coord class have a member variable called set with methods
x()
y()
z()
This would require just as much code as writing a set_x(), set_y() and set_z() method in your Coord class, but the methods would not belong to the class Coord, instead belonging to another class that is itself used as a member variable of Coord. Doing so would not really make any logical sense... the x, y, and z values belong to Coord and operations on them are operations on the Coord.
Furthermore the methods x() y() and z() would no longer obey the general principle of making methods verbs. Anyone reading the class with those methods would have no idea what function z() is supposed to do!
It would also create a refactoring nightmare: If for example in the future a business requirement appeared that meant no Coords could ever have values of x greater than 21 somone maintaining your code would have to change a class that is a member of Coord rather than the Coord class itself.
Encapsulation with getter and setter methods is often a really good idea and in C++ with the benefit of inlining it can even add no runtime overhead. But keep to the principle "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." In other words get_x() and set_x() are widely understood, useful, easily refactored, convenient, self-documenting and performant... other approaches are likely to be less so.
First: Your usage of c.set.x would not work because you would call a public element set on your object c and where set has a public element x.
I find both classes lack standards of clean code and usual style of getter and setter - even without specifying any language.
A usual way would be to create the following:
class Coord
{
double x;
double y;
double z;
public:
Coord() {
x = 0;
y = 0;
z = 0;
}
Coord(double x, double y, double z)
{
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
this.z = z;
}
void setX(double x) { this.x = x; }
void setY(double y) { this.y = y; }
void setZ(double z) { this.z = z; }
double getX() { return x; }
double getY() { return y; }
double getZ() { return z; }
};
Though some prefer to use m_x as setter variable parameter or any other convention.
Anyhow everyone would directly understand your code. Is able to set and get coordinate values for x, y, z and it would look pretty standard-default-behaviour if someone does following:
Coord P(10, 15, 20);
std::cout << P.getX() << " " << P.getY() << std::endl;
P.setX(-10);
P.setZ(40);
You've already gotten some good answers, but you could also use an enum if you really want a syntax with fewer setters and getters. The client syntax can get a little clunky and awkward, but it of course depends on what you're looking for!
#include <iostream>
class Coord {
public:
enum Axis {
X = 0,
Y,
Z,
NUM_AXES
};
// Using extended initializer lists (C++11)
Coord() : axes_{0, 0, 0} {}
Coord(double x, double y, double z) : axes_{x, y, z} {}
void set(Axis a, double d) {
axes_[a] = d;
}
double get(Axis a) const {
return axes_[a];
}
private:
double axes_[NUM_AXES];
// Copy constructor and assgn. operator included for good measure
Coord(const Coord &);
void operator=(const Coord &);
};
int main()
{
Coord c(1, 2, 3);
std::cout << "X: " << c.get(Coord::X) << std::endl;
std::cout << "Y: " << c.get(Coord::Y) << std::endl;
std::cout << "Z: " << c.get(Coord::Z) << std::endl;
c.set(Coord::Y, 4);
std::cout << "Y: " << c.get(Coord::Y) << std::endl;
return 0;
}
This strange code does exactly what you ask - just C++ fun. Don't do this!
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Coord {
double x;
double y;
double z;
public:
class Setter {
public:
Setter(Coord& coord) : c(coord) {}
void x(double value) { c.x = value; }
void y(double value) { c.y = value; }
void z(double value) { c.z = value; }
void operator()(double x, double y, double z) { c.x = x; c.y = y; c.z = z; }
private:
Coord& c;
};
class Getter {
public:
Getter(Coord& coord) : c(coord) {}
double x() { return c.x; }
double y() { return c.y; }
double z() { return c.z; }
private:
Coord& c;
};
Setter set;
Getter get;
Coord() : set(*this), get(*this) { x = y = z = 0; }
friend class Setter;
};
int main()
{
Coord c;
cout << c.get.x() << " " << c.get.y() << " " << c.get.z() << endl;
c.set.x(1);
c.set.y(2);
c.set.z(3);
cout << c.get.x() << " " << c.get.y() << " " << c.get.z() << endl;
c.set(5, 6, 7);
cout << c.get.x() << " " << c.get.y() << " " << c.get.z() << endl;
return 0;
}
Output:
0 0 0
1 2 3
5 6 7
The more or less standard way to expose this, if validation is not a concern, is to return mutable references from the non-const accessor, and values from the const one. This allows you to separate the interface from storage, while not making the syntax too heavy.
private:
double m_x, m_y, m_z;
public:
double & x() { return m_x; }
double & y() { return m_y; }
double & z() { return m_z; }
double x() const { return m_x; }
double y() const { return m_y; }
double z() const { return m_z; }
This will allow c.x() to obtain the value of the x coordinate whether the Coord object is const or not, and allows setting the value using the syntax c.x() = value.
In the interest of completeness, you can get exactly the syntax you want using the following code, but I would strongly recommend against it. It is a lot of extra code, provides no real benefit, and creates a syntax that is uncommon and most programmers will not find it intuitive.
The technique creates two nested classes getters and setters and exposes instances of them as public members of Coord.
This is provided as an example of how to achieve the result you asked for, but I do not recommend this approach.
class Coord
{
private:
double x, y, z;
public:
Coord();
Coord(double, double, double);
class setters {
friend class Coord;
private:
explicit setters(Coord &);
public:
setters(setters const &) = delete;
setters & operator=(setters const &) = delete;
void x(double) const;
void y(double) const;
void z(double) const;
private:
Coord & coord;
};
friend class setters;
class getters {
friend class Coord;
private:
explicit getters(Coord const &);
public:
getters(getters const &) = delete;
getters & operator=(getters const &) = delete;
double x() const;
double y() const;
double z() const;
private:
Coord const & coord;
};
friend class getters;
setters const set;
getters const get;
};
Coord::Coord() : x(0), y(0), z(0), set(*this), get(*this) { }
Coord::Coord(double px, double py, double pz) : x(px), y(py), z(pz), set(*this), get(*this) { }
Coord::setters::setters(Coord & c) : coord(c) { }
void Coord::setters::x(double px) const {
coord.x = px;
}
void Coord::setters::y(double py) const {
coord.y = py;
}
void Coord::setters::z(double pz) const {
coord.z = pz;
}
Coord::getters::getters(Coord const & c) : coord(c) { }
double Coord::getters::x() const {
return coord.x;
}
double Coord::getters::y() const {
return coord.y;
}
double Coord::getters::z() const {
return coord.z;
}
(Demo)
Actually the function can be reduce based on your requirement as follows,
class Coord
{
double x;
double y;
double z;
public:
Coord() {
x = 0;
y = 0;
z = 0;
}
void GetValues(double* x=NULL, double* y=NULL, double* z=NULL);
void SetValues(double x=0, double y=0, double z=0)
/* You can use constructors like below to set value at the creation of object*/
Coord(double x, double y, double z)
{
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
this.z = z;
}
/*You can set the values of x, y & z in a single function as follows. It can be used at any time without restriction */
void SetValues(double x, double y, double z)
{
if(x > 0) //It is optional to use condition so that you can update any one variable aloen by sending other two as ZERO
{
this.x = x;
}
if(y > 0)
{
this.y = y;
}
if(z > 0)
{
this.z = z;
}
}
/*You can Get the values of x, y & z in a single function as follows. Pass By Reference id the concept you need */
void GetValues(double* x, double* y, double* z)
{
if(x != NULL) //It x is not null.
{
x = this.x;
}
if(y != NULL)
{
y = this.y;
}
if(z != NULL)
{
z= this.z;
}
}
};
while calling you can call like the following,
SetValues(10, 20, 0); //To set x and y values alone.
double x1 = 0;double y1 = 0;double z1 = 0;
GetValues(&x1, &y1, &z1)//It will return the values x1 y1 and z1 as 10, 20 & 0
You cannot do exactly what you want.
In
c.set.x(5); /* only set x */
the c.set subexpression is retrieving a field set from c (unless set is a #define-d macro, but that would be silly).
I am currently trying to create a circle class in C++ but when I compile I get an error saying "call of overloaded 'Circle' is ambiguous. I am quite new to C++ and not sure what this means. I have been using a similar example found here Class tutorial
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
const double pi = 3.14159265;
class Circle
{
private:
double radius, xpos, ypos, area;
public:
Circle(double r, double xposition, double yposition) {
r = radius;
xposition = xpos;
yposition = ypos;
}
Circle(double r = 0) {
radius = r;
xpos = 0;
ypos = 0;
}
Circle() {
radius = 0;
xpos = 0;
ypos = 0;
}
double getRadius() {return radius;}
double getX() {return xpos;}
double getY() {return ypos;}
double getArea() {return pi*radius*radius;}
Circle operator+(const Circle& c) {
Circle circle;
circle.area = this -> getArea() + c.getArea();
return circle;
}
};
int main()
{
Circle circ(3,2,1);
double x = circ.getX();
cout << x << endl;
return 0;
}
Your problem is this:
Circle(double r = 0);
Circle();
Nothing much more to say about it that isn't already obvious from the above.
The default value in Circle(double r = 0) makes the use of Circle() ambiguous.
By the way, you've got your member variable initialization all wrong here:
Circle(double r, double xposition, double yposition)
{
r = radius;
xposition = xpos;
yposition = ypos;
}
Instead of setting the member variables to the values of the input arguments, you are setting the input arguments to the "junk" values of the member variables...
You have two different constructors that can be called with no parameters, because one of them has a default for the parameter. You can delete the default constructor, since it's redundant.