|
Fat__Eric wrote: Used a lot in C though. A heck of a lot. Surprises me they werent better catered for in C++
Possibly because C++ doesn't encourage C-style programming.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
Yet there are a lot of functions in the Win32 API that use call backs. 
==============================
Nothing to say.
|
|
|
|
|
The Windows API is more C than it is C++.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you suggesting that C++ was designed to be incompatible with the win 32 API?
==============================
Nothing to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Well... since all my C++ Win32 programs seem to work, I guess that can't be it, right? 
|
|
|
|
|
For that to be true, the win32 Api would have had to exist first. (it didn't)
|
|
|
|
|
Fat__Eric wrote: Yet there are a lot of functions in the Win32 API that use call backs.
C++ wasn't designed to favour Win32 API integration, I guess. Anyway there you don't need this, in fact the wrappers for Win32 API callbacks are (usually) static C++ methods.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, and the calling back mechanism is of course in the win32 api so it is ignorant of C++.
Anyway, it strikes me as a particularly daft limitation to have to specify 'this->' when legally just (*proc) is valid (since C++ extends the C language).
==============================
Nothing to say.
|
|
|
|
|
That wouldn't be a method call, that would be a function call (i.e. the syntax would be indistinguishable).
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: That wouldn't be a method call, that would be a function call (i.e. the syntax
would be indistinguishable).
Are you saying it is the same as C? It isnt.
==============================
Nothing to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Why not?
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
Thats what this thread is all about.
If you want to call a funciton pointer in a class for another member of that class you cant just call (*pProc)(), you need to prefix it thus: (this->*pProc)(). ( or (*this.*pProc)(), whci is cleaner, though VS hates it).
==============================
Nothing to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if you remove this then the syntax would be exactly (or, at least compatible with) the one used for bare C functions. That would be a bit ambiguous.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
If you remove the this-> it doesnt compile.
==============================
Nothing to say.
|
|
|
|
|
That's my point. It shouldn't compile (it would be ambiguous).
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
Fat__Eric wrote:
You dont need to specify 'this->' when calling member funcs, you just call them by name. Thats the point I am making.
right. and the point i'm making is that the C++ designers made the 'this->' implicit when calling a member function directly from inside the class: the compiler simply assumes a call to non-static member fn CFoo::Whatever() from inside a class is the same as a call to this->Whatever() - they just let you omit the 'this->' for such a common case. but the C++ authors didn't provide for that little bit of syntactic shortcut when dealing with member fn ptrs. maybe there's a subtle technical reason they didn't give the same shortcut for member fn ptrs, but i haven't been able to find it. it seems obvious that if you can assume 'this' for a normal member fn call, you can assume this for a member fn ptr call.
Fat__Eric wrote: Used a lot in C though. A heck of a lot. Surprises me they werent better catered for in C++.
but not so much in C++. i can count the number of times i've used them in C++ on one finger - and that was when doing a quick-n-dirty conversion of an old C program to C++.
|
|
|
|
|
The reason was it was ambiguous.
They could have provided a different dereferencing operator for member function pointers, something like ::* maybe, but alas they didn't.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
ahmed zahmed wrote: The reason was it was ambiguous.
no, it isn't. or, it wouldn't be. (it is now, since the C++ rules don't allow for this kind of thing, but that's not my point)
the compiler already knows how to do the implicit 'this' with member functions. it could do the same thing with member fn ptrs. assume unqualified member references are to 'this'. if a member function pointer for the class is used inside a non-static member function? assume 'this'.
|
|
|
|
|
yes, it could do that, but then calling a c-style function pointer would need a new syntax then.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
why? one syntax works for function calls now:
strcpy(foo, bar);
memberFnOfThisClass(foo, bar);
staticMemberFnOfThisClass(foo, bar);
std::sort(blah1, blah2);
|
|
|
|
|
When you use a pointer data member the syntax is *pVar = 10; or some such. No need to write
this->*pVar = 10;
So why not with member func pointers?
In fact func pointers are very useful, once you get to have used them a fair bit, they are indispensible, I just never realised how crappy the syntax for them is in C++.
==============================
Nothing to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Fat__Eric wrote: So I use a lot of function pointers in C
You don't however use member function pointers in C. Because they do not exist.
That said you shouldn't be using a "lot" of function pointers in C++ because there are probably better ways to do what you want in C++ without using them.
Perhaps what you want is a static member function pointer.
Or even just a function pointer - which would be exactly like it is in C.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: they do not exist
True, unless you think of function pointers in a struct as member functions. Then the dereferencing syntax is very similar.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
You know, if they are going to put the feature in the language, then saying "you shouldnt use that feature because there are better ways of doing it" is total bollocks.
The fact is the feature exists, yet the syntax is inconsistent with non pointer functions.
OK, take pointer member variables. Do you have to reference them as 'this->*pInt = 1;'
No, you just write '*pInt = 1;' in any function belonging to that class.
Yet you cant for a function pointer. You cant do (*pProc)(blah blah blah) you have to do (this->*pProc)(blah blah blah).
It is wrong!
==============================
Nothing to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Fat__Eric wrote: Yet you cant for a function pointer. You cant do (*pProc)(blah blah blah) you
have to do (this->*pProc)(blah blah blah).
I don't see that.
At best you are suggesting a shortcut that would apply to limited situations. It would require all of the following.
1. One needs a member function pointer to method X in class A.
2. Class A needs a variable of that type.
3. Class A needs to use tht variable to call itself.
I have very rarely seen a need for 1. Perhaps less that 10 times.
I have never seen a case for 2.
If I saw 3 I would suspect that there is a design flaw. I wouldn't be surprised if 2 represented a design flaw as well.
If there is any valid case for 3 then the there are so few situations that complicating the syntax just to provide a shortcut isn't worth it.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
