C / C++ / MFC

Zac Howland wrote:

I will only mention that almost always, protected should be replaced by private.

toxcct wrote:

maybe, but here, the protected member is accessed by a children... so, putting it private will cause a new problem in his code.

"The largest fire starts but with the smallest spark." - David Crow

"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb

Dave Schumann wrote:

It's not complaining about accessing "partner"

class A
{
public:
	A* partner;

	void doodah()	{ ++partner->value; }
	int getValue() const		{ return value; }
	void setValue(int newValue)	{ value = newValue; }
protected:
	int value;
};

class B: public A
{
public:
	void foobar()	{ partner->setValue(partner->getValue() + 2); }
};

Dave Schumann wrote:

You've provided public accessors to "value". If I wanted value to be accessible publicly, I'd just make it public.

Dave Schumann wrote:

I'm not putting "protected" in just to make life hard. I actually don't want any outside classes modifying "value". If you make "setValue" protected above - which is the whole point - then you've violated the restrictions I want on "value".

Zac Howland wrote:

Why do you have a pointer to A as a member of class A? From experience, every single time I've seen that type of code, it has been due to poor design

class MyJunk
{
public:
	void DoSomething() {}
private:
	int _Data;
};

std::list<MyJunk> myJunkList;

Dave Schumann wrote:

Except when forming a pointer to member (expr.unary.op), the access must be through a pointer to, reference to, or object of the derived class itself (or any class derived from that class)

Dave Schumann wrote:

I think this is dumb beyond belief.

struct A
{
	void doodah()
	{ 	++partner->value; }

protected:
	int& partnerValue(){ return partner->value;}
private:
	A* partner;
	int value;
};

struct B : public A
{
	void foobar()
	{ partnerValue() += 2; }
};