Re: A::foo() or a.foo()

From:

"Victor Bazarov" <v.Abazarov@comAcast.net>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:36:25 -0500

Message-ID:

<fntbg9$7l6$1@news.datemas.de>

James Kanze wrote:

On Jan 30, 9:31 pm, "Victor Bazarov" <v.Abaza...@comAcast.net> wrote:

saneman wrote:

In A.h I have:

class A {
public:
std::list<int>l;
int foo();
...
...
};

In A.cpp I have:

int A::foo() {
return A::l.top(); // (1)
return l.top(); // (2)
return (this*).l.top(); // (3)
}

All 3 returns give the correct result (when used separately). But
which one is best to use or is it just a matter of taste?

The best is not to have 'l' public.

As to what form to use for accessing members, then in your
situation it is the matter of taste. All three are equivalent
from the language POV.

On the other hand, if a reader sees anything but (2), he's going
to wonder why?

Depends on the reader...

The one exception would be in templates, where
this->l.top() might be used.

There is no reason in templates to use 'this->' to access your
own member.

The only reason I think the additional qualification or the member
access operator might be needed is to resolve the name correctly
if it's _hidden_ by another name in the scope:

    for (int l = 0; l < 42; ++l) { // hides 'l' member
        this->l.push_back(666); // resolves to 'l' member
    }

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask