Re: A::foo() or a.foo()
* Victor Bazarov:
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.
template< typename T >
struct Base
{
void foo() {}
};
template< typename T >
struct Derived: Base<T>
{
void bar() { this->foo(); }
};
Cheers, & hth.,
- Alf
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?