Re: Problem with array objects
"Joshua Maurice" <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ed74694-0012-47aa-ab1f-93f326b19d46@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 1, 3:58 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"Joshua Maurice" <joshuamaur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-- Let me reproduce my const example:
-- int x = 0;
-- int const& y = x;
-- x = 1;
--I just modified the object referred to by "y", and it's not unusual to
--say that "y" is unmodifiable.
But when you say 'y' is non modifiable you usually mean it cannot be
assigned to refer to another object.
--Minor semantic quibble: In the above example, y refers to the same
--object. The value of the object has changed. Ex:
-- int x[3] = {};
-- x[0] = 1; //line A
--Line A doesn't create nor destroy any objects. It doesn't make
--something refer to a new object. Line A merely changes the value of an
--already existing object.
No, Major error.
The reference is not changed unless is it made to alias another object.
(2) An object(of class type) does not contain member functions. LOL
This must be a joke because an array object can "contain" sub objects
,
as
a
concept but an object(of class type) cannot "contain" memeber
function,
as
a
concept.
--Yep. The C++ source code of the member functions neither appears
--inside the declaration nor definition of the object.
The member function is declared inside the the class definiton.
--Yes. The class definition contains the member function. The object
--definition does not contain the member function declaration nor
--definition.
-- class Foo { public: void f(); }; //class definition
-- Foo foo; //object definition
The class defines the object type. Above you have declared an object of
type
Foo, objects of type Foo are defined by the class Foo.
--No. Please go reread the ODR and the other parts of the standards
--which describe "definitions" and "declarations". The terminology is
--quite clear.
-- class Foo {};
--That is a declaration. It brings into scope the name "Foo". It is a
--declaration of the name "Foo". It is also a definition; it is a
--definition of a class - it satisfies one of the bullets of the
--standard, in this case it is a declaration of a class name which has
--the class body.
-- Foo x;
--This is a declaration. It brings into scope the name "x". It is also a
--definition; it is a definition of an object - it satisfies one of the
--bullets of the standard, in this case it is a declaration of an object
--name without anything else that would make it not a definition (such
--as "extern").
--An object is /not/ defined by the class definition. That is simply
--confusing and incorrect terminology. The definition of the object, or
--more specifically the name of the object, is the declaration which
--brings the name into scope, and which satisfies the requirements of
--being a definition (one requirement is no "extern").
There is no definition for each object created. An object instance is not
defined it's type is defined, and that defintion stands for all objects of
the given type..
An object type is defined by a class.