Thread: new Object() and &Object()

Originally Posted by tabstop

"polymorphic, dynamic binding" is the same as "override the base class function and call the derived classes function", at least in the sense of "even though we're holding a base class pointer here". Without virtual, you'd always get Base class functions whenever you called from a Base class pointer, regardless of what was actually being pointed to.


You told the compiler "this is a pointer to Base", and it was unable to find any reason to disbelieve you.

thanks tabstop..as always you find a way to make things clear.
nice one man.

Originally Posted by tabstop

Since in this case there is no object there to return any information, the program continues on its way using the type you told it was there.

And to clarify the function exists even though the object is not allocated, because the function is one for every class used by all objects. Like:

Code:

void Virtual(Base* this)
{
    cout << "....";
}

in your case this will point to nowhere but since it is not used the program might not crush. If you were to use "num" inside the function (try it) then you have more chances to crush it.

is it possible to pass "this"?
it is implicitly passed...
i will try your idea now

the function is one for every class used by all objects

is it that not if the functions are of the objects of the same class?
so they share one function..is that what you mean?

EDIT:
i used num..
just print what it held..it didn't crash
same with assigning...i guess i need more chances..

I think his point was that the code doesn't live inside the object; the code lives as a function with the rest of the code; so it's not as though you were trying to run code at an invalid memory address, just looking at invalid memory.

oh...I have no idea what you mean by "the code doesn't.."

once-valid pointer?
I thought we agreed that it doesn't point to anything..only at run time?
unless it points to a valid address, but it doesn't create a static bind to a function call.
so b[0] did point to something.

Originally Posted by tabstop

Your objects live somewhere in memory. But nowhere in that chunk of memory is the instructions for the function. Those instructions live elsewhere (with the rest of the program, not with all the variables).


It pointed at something for approximately 0.0002 seconds (between the temporary object being constructed and then being destructed at the end of the statement). But the pointer still retains it's value, and still holds the address where that temporary object was constructed.

ah yeah. I understand you now.
sweet, thanks much fellas .