Class with pointer to same class

**Skusey** · 11-08-2006

Hi,
I have designed a class in C++ that has four pointers to its 'neighbours' in the world. Its neighbours are of the same class, so I have ended up with a class that has a reference to itself. Sorry for the poor explanation, the code will make it more obivous:

Code:

class TerrainPatch
{
public:
	TerrainPatch();
	~TerrainPatch();

	TerrainPatch* 	mNorthPatch, mEastPatch, mSouthPatch, mWestPatch; // <-- Problem
};

I can see why the compiler is upset with it, but I am unsure how to get round the problem. I could hold the 'neighbour' information outside the class if necessary, but the above approach would be most ideal. So any suggestions on how to code this?

Cheers for the help,
Skusey

**hk_mp5kpdw** · 11-08-2006

Your compiler doesn't like it because mEastPatch, mSouthPatch and mWestPatch are not pointers but rather actual instances of the class and you can't do that. You need to indicate that these are also pointers:

Code:

TerrainPatch *mNorthPatch, *mEastPatch, *mSouthPatch, *mWestPatch;

**taelmx** · 11-08-2006

You need to make the "neigbors" pointers... I think thats wht you should do. I'm a little new to C++, but I think that is right.

**Skusey** · 11-08-2006

ahh... oh dear looks like my understanding of C++ is actually going backwards...

Could someone explain the difference between:

Code:

TerrainPatch* blah;

and...

Code:

TerrainPatch *blah;

I see the magical star move back and forth in example code all the time, and I had just accepted it both meant the same thing, a pointer.

BTW, thank you for the help hk_mp5kpdw, your code works perfectly!

Skusey

**Skusey** · 11-08-2006

Reading hk_mp5kpdw's post again I see you are emphasising only the last 3 in the list, so I assume TerrainPatch* blah, and TerrainPatch *blah, both represent a pointer, and are the same then? Is there a standard way this should be used? The * with the datatype, or with the name?

Cheers again,
Skusey

**maxorator** · 11-08-2006

Could someone explain the difference between:

There is no difference, but you always need * in front of every pointer.
People have this strange thought, that this:

Code:

int* hello,hello2,hello3;

makes them all pointers and equals to this:

Code:

int *hello,*hello2,*hello3;

But as there's no difference between int *hello and int* hello, then the first one doesn't actually make them all pointers.

**Mario F.** · 11-08-2006

They are just the result of writing style. Although it can generate some debate trying to answer which is best.

**SKeane** · 11-08-2006

Code:

TerrainPatch *mNorthPatch, mEastPatch, mSouthPatch, mWestPatch;

Is the same as

Code:

TerrainPatch *mNorthPatch;
TerrainPatch mEastPatch;
TerrainPatch mSouthPatch;
TerrainPatch mWestPatch;

Which is not what you wanted, however ...

Code:

TerrainPatch *mNorthPatch, *mEastPatch, *mSouthPatch, *mWestPatch;

Is the same as

Code:

TerrainPatch *mNorthPatch;
TerrainPatch *mEastPatch;
TerrainPatch *mSouthPatch;
TerrainPatch *mWestPatch;

Which as mp5kpdw pointed out, is probably what you wanted.

**maxorator** · 11-08-2006

They are just the result of writing style. Although it can generate some debate trying to answer which is best.

That debate would be as meaningful as debating whether you should bite a sandwich from the left or from the right corner.

**hk_mp5kpdw** · 11-08-2006

There is no difference... for defining multiple pointers on a single line of code it helps me to focus on each of the variables as being pointers (or not if that's the case) if the * is as close to the variable name as possible instead of being seperated by however much whitespace. You can do it like this if you want:

Code:

TerrainPatch*	mNorthPatch, * mEastPatch, * mSouthPatch, * mWestPatch;

The spacing doesn't matter for this example as long as each variable has a * to go along with it. It is easy (in my mind) to do the kind of mistake you made if the * is closer to the type instead of the variable name. If I'm doing single variables statements on each line of code, I may do things both ways since it doesn't matter in those cases. It's just clearer to me to keep the * close to the variable name if I have several pointer variable declarations to make on a given line.

**SKeane** · 11-08-2006

Your sandwiches have corners?

**Mario F.** · 11-08-2006

>That debate would be as meaningful as debating whether you should bite the sandwich from the left or from the right corner.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. There's some good points on both sides and usually the reason has nothing to do with the pointers themselves but on how one usually declares their variables; one per line or more than one per line.

**hk_mp5kpdw** · 11-08-2006

Originally Posted by maxorator

That debate would be as meaningful as debating whether you should bite a sandwich from the left or from the right corner.

Obviously it's the middle (bend the bread and bite the side at the fold to make a hole when the bread is unfolded).

**maxorator** · 11-08-2006

So, then the middle way is to do this:

Code:

char*big,*small; //or
char * big, * small;

Obviously it's the middle (bend the bread and bite the side at the fold to make a hole when the bread is unfolded).

I usually make thick sandwiches so they're not easily bendable.

**Skusey** · 11-08-2006

Thanks for all the help everyone, one more piece of the C++ puzzle clear in my head, eventhough its now polluted somewhat with sandwich annolgies

.

Cheers again,
Skusey

Thread: Class with pointer to same class

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Class with pointer to same class

Similar Threads

Getting an error with OpenGL: collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

Initializing a pointer in a class.

class passing a pointer to self to other class

base class pointer problems

Warnings, warnings, warnings?