Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)

- Tilted Technology (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-technology/)

- - [C++] Challenge (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-technology/41711-c-challenge.html)

cowlick

01-16-2004 07:54 AM

[C++] Challenge

So recently I watched from a distance as two qualified coworkers tried for maybe 3 hours to figure out this C++ quandry.

In a method, create a table of pointers to non static member functions of class CFoo. Take an instance of CFoo and call out on the member functions from the table.

kel	01-16-2004 08:06 AM

Uhmm... that sounds like it is semantically nonsensical.

You should not be able to create pointers to non-static member functions of a class.
ASSUMING that the compiler let you do this (it is possible that It might let you create the function pointer anyway even though they are non-static) you can't call them without passing in the this pointer.

Non-static member (Static member functions don't need the this pointer because the location of the unique static instance is fixed in memory) functions always have a this pointer that needs to be passed in by the compiler implicitly, when you call the functions from a table your not passing in the *this pointer to the CFoo instance. If the compiler allows you to explicitly pass in CFoo as the first argument to the functions as you call from that table then it might make sense semantically.

Semantics of the language isn't everything though. The compiler may expressly forbid you from creating those function pointers cuz it's just sorta fubar.

I don't do C++ anymore, anyway why the heck do you want to do this? There has to be another more elegant way, you could just pass a pointer to the instance of CFoo itself to the right spot.

n0nsensical

01-16-2004 04:04 PM

You mean like this?

Code:

#include &lt;iostream&gt;

using namespace std;



class CFoo

{

        public:

                void func1() { cout << "func1 for CFoo at " << this << endl; }

                void func2() { cout << "func2 for CFoo at " << this << endl; }

};



typedef void (CFoo::*FooMethod)();



int main()

{

        FooMethod methods[2];

        methods[0] = &CFoo::func1;

        methods[1] = &CFoo::func2;

        CFoo foo;

        (foo.*methods[0])();

        (foo.*methods[1])();

        return 0;

}

What's up with the double spacing on that? I don't know.

cowlick

01-18-2004 03:52 PM

Yes, just like that.
For those that say this is not possible, check your Stroustroup.
As far as this being a poor idea in an object oriented language - I'd agree in most cases there are more elegant solutions.

mulletJeb

01-19-2004 01:21 AM

n0nsensical: you know, if it weren't for the timestamps on this thread, it would look like you were throwing kel's words ("semantically nonsensical") back at him. that amused me, but then again it's 4:21am.

KnifeMissile

01-21-2004 02:49 PM

I hope I'm not being pedantic but I would have written the last part out like this:

Code:

// this is simple but, unfortunately, this will erroneously compile with a pointer parameter...

#define NUM_OF(x)    (sizeof(x)/sizeof(x[0]))



// this will generate a run-time compile error if the parameter is _not_ an array!

template <typename T, size_t size> size_t num_of(T(&)[size]) { return size; }



int main() {

        FooMethod methods[2];

        methods[0] = CFoo::func1;  // like arrays, functions are already pointers, so...

        methods[1] = CFoo::func2;  // ...you don't need to dereference them...



        CFoo foo;

        for(int i = 0; i < num_of(methods); ++i) {

        (foo.*methods[0])();

        (foo.*methods[1])();

        }



        return 0;

}

Functions are already pointers so, like arrays, you don't need to dereference them when assigning to pointers. In fact, I'm surprised that compilers are hacked to work despite the dereferencing!

The for() loop was just for style, as is the num_of() template function. Although far more complicated than the macro, it's safer 'cause the marcro will erroneously compile if you use a pointer instead of an array. The function only makes sense if you're passing in an array of objects...

The double spacing is annoying. I would have used the quote block except it removes all leading white space. By the way, n0nsensical, how on Earth did you enter tabs into the text box? Thanks!

n0nsensical

01-21-2004 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KnifeMissle
Functions are already pointers so, like arrays, you don't need to dereference them when assigning to pointers. In fact, I'm surprised that compilers are hacked to work despite the dereferencing!

The for() loop was just for style, as is the num_of() template function. Although far more complicated than the macro, it's safer 'cause the marcro will erroneously compile if you use a pointer instead of an array. The function only makes sense if you're passing in an array of objects...

The double spacing is annoying. I would have used the quote block except it removes all leading white space. By the way, n0nsensical, how on Earth did you enter tabs into the text box? Thanks!

I don't know if it's in the C++ Standard but as far as I know the & before function names is simply optional, not illegal. Same for using the * operator to call a function through a pointer. I just copied and pasted in the code and the tabs went with it.

KnifeMissile

01-21-2004 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by n0nsensical
I don't know if it's in the C++ Standard but as far as I know the & before function names is simply optional, not illegal. Same for using the * operator to call a function through a pointer. I just copied and pasted in the code and the tabs went with it.

It is optional and not illegal, hence my comment on how it's a hack. I can't help but feel that one is more consistent than the other, sort of like this situation:

Code:

const int foo;

int const bar;

Both lines of code do exactly the same thing but bar is more consistent than foo, so I use it despite the popularity of foo's style...

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:36 AM.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360