|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
>
> > Well, you might want to think of it from a usage standpoint. I think
> > you'll find that the functions don't always need a *this pointer. It
> > depends on the implementation. For example:
> >
> > class Foo {
> >
> > public:
> > void print(void) { printf("Hello World"); };
> > };
> >
> > If I call an instance of the above, what happens?
> >
> > Foo foo;
> > foo.print();
> >
> > I'd bet most recent compilers don't pass *this for the above case. It's
> > unneeded for the implementation.
>
> </snip>
>
> I don't think it's an interesting case.
> If you don't need "this", why to make it a member function ? What gives ?
Shhh. It's a teaching example and helps get them thinking about
optimization. :)
> The mess like MDBuilder when I got ? <g> [ This is for Kevin eyes only ]
You escaped that, I'm happy to say. Lucky us. I'm fixing something in
there now.
> The core idea of C++ ( if I got Mr Stroustrup right, of course )
> is to tie a set of data ( structure ) to functions using this data.
> So how do we conveniently give such functions the reference to data ?
> Simply introducing the implicit first calling parameter "this".
> And the data is protected on language level from accessing from outside,
> because only such member functions are given access to it.
> There're cases when you don't need access to a particular instance.
> Static member functions and friends exist just for this
>
> Sergey.
Yes, of course you're right. It was more an example to point out what
might happen. I would question use of a member function that didn't
access member data myself.
--
Kevin
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|