Hoe do I check that something's null, like in:
How do I check to see if "prev" was ever set?Code:class Test { private: std::string name; Test prev; Test(Test previous, std::string n) : prev( previous ), name( n ) {} Test(std::string n) : name( n ) {} const char* test() { //I want to do smth similar to this type of code: if ( prev != null ) return ...elided...; ..rest elided... } }
Last edited by 6tr6tr; 04-10-2008 at 03:14 PM.
NULL == 0
So prev would have to be a pointer for that to work.
Right I know.Originally Posted by Raigne
I want to know how I can check if that variable was ever set. How do I do that? (Because if it wasn't set and I try to call a member on it, I'll get a runtime error)
So how do I know it's ok to call a member on it?
[QUOTE=6tr6tr;740392]Hoe do I check that something's null, like in:
Unfortunately this code example will not even compile, because you have an instance of "Test" inside "Test" itself, in other words, an infinite recursion. You have to use a pointer or reference -- in this case, a pointer, since you want null checking.Code:class Test { private: std::string name; Test prev; Test(Test previous, std::string n) : prev( previous ), name( n ) {} Test(std::string n) : name( n ) {} const char* test() { //I want to do smth similar to this type of code: if ( prev != null ) return ...elided...; ..rest elided... } }
The value of "null" is 0. So to see if a pointer is pointing "nowhere," just compare it with 0. In C we had the NULL constant -- in C++ it is preferred to just use 0.
A class instance is never not initialized (unless it is a POD), so you don't have to worry about an instance being null.
>> So how do I know it's ok to call a member on it?
It should always ok to call a member function (or use a member variable) of an instance of a class. It is only a pointer that could cause a problem in your program if you use it without being initialized.
OK, thanks! That makes sense now. It's very different from java.
Hmmm, my program's still not working. I'm now passing a pointer "Test* previous" and setting it equal to a pointer in th class. But when I check:
if ( test > 0 )
It always returns as true even if I pass "NULL" into the constructor. What am i doing wrong?
>> It's very different from java.
Yes, very different. If you want a pointer or reference, you have to explicitly state that by using * or &. Otherwise, C++ does a lot of stuff by value, and to be good at it you need to be able to do things by value in addition to by reference.
>> What am i doing wrong?
I don't know, can you post the code?
BTW, normally you use if (test != 0).
Don't use relational operators on pointers. Use !=.
But that's probably not the problem. Code?
By the way, in Java, all variables of object type are pointers (Java calls them references). In C++, variables are objects unless you explicitly make them pointers or references.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
EDIT: OK, why is this?Code:class Test { private: std::string name; Test* test; public: Test(std::string n) { Test( n, NULL ); } Test(std::string n, Test* other): name( n ) { test = other; //This says it is zero when I call other constructor, so it's right if ( test == 0 ) printf( "null in constructor" ); } const char* print() { //This does NOT print out, somehow it's no longer 0 if ( test == 0 ) printf( "null in print" ); return n; } } int main() { Test t( "name" ); //This says it's not null t.print(); return 0; }
Code:If I change the first constructor to this: Test(std::string n) :name( n ); { test = NULL; } then it works!! Why? What's the difference?
Last edited by 6tr6tr; 04-10-2008 at 04:24 PM.
You can't call one constructor from another constructor. You can make one constructor with a default value for test:Otherwise you just have to initialize name and test in both constructors separately.Code:Test(std::string n, Test* other = 0): name( n ), test(other)
Last edited by Daved; 04-10-2008 at 04:25 PM.
Yep, thanks! I just figured that out. You can do it in java so I didn't realize there was no way to do it in C++. Too bad, it's very convenient.
Supposedly, the ability to chain constructors is coming in C++0x.
Yeah, but Java doesn't let you set default values, so C++ loses a point and so does Java.
It's in the working paper.Supposedly, the ability to chain constructors is coming in C++0x.
The bad part for Java programmers isn't that C++ doesn't let you chain constructors. It's that the syntax used for this in Java - with this replaced by the class name - is actually valid. It just doesn't really do anything.Code:foo::foo() : foo(x, y, z) {}
All the buzzt!
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
