Hi, I currently have a C++ programming assignment where we have been given the header files declaring what the functions look like, and we just have to implement them.
In the constructor for one of my classes I want to use a method I have written, but is not declared in any of the .h files, i.e. not a method that has been declared by our lecturer. Any ideas for where I can put this method so I can access it, but without altering the .h file?
Thanks
Is the method a member of the class?
No, it is unrelated. I would just add it as a member of the class but they are declared in the .h files and hence I can't.
If you only need it in one source file, then put it in that source file and use it.
Code:#include "YourFile.h"
Or if you're not allowed to add any headers, put it inside the unnamed namespace:For your small program it doesn't matter, but doing this would avoid clashes with other functions of the same name in other source files.Code:namespace { void my_method() { } }
i think he's wondering if he can add a member-function to a class that's already been defined without changing the header. To which the answer would be, yes, use inheritance. Have your own class with whatever extra member functions you need be of the public type declared in your lecturers header.
Example;
Code://"lecture.h" ...... class base { public: base() {.....}; ~base() {......}; void memFunc1() const { ....}; int memFunc2(int x) {......}; .......ect..... }; //myclass.cpp #include "lecture.h" ....... class MyClass : public base { public: void myFunc1 () const {....}; };
Last edited by Terran; 06-03-2008 at 01:19 PM.
Sorry, but i'm a Code::Blocks man now.
That approach cannot be used for a function that will be called by a constructor of the base class, Terran. Order of construction (base class is constructed before derived class) means that a base class constructor cannot make a direct call of a non-static member function (i.e. this->member_function_of_derived_class()).
More fundamentally, if the function is relevant to implementing your class, why is it being kept in a separate function? The obvious approach would be to place relevant functionality into one of the declared members of the class (eg into the constructor).
This strikes me as a classic case of having a solution to a problem that happens to violate defined design or implementation constraints. The header file provided AngryStyro's lecturer is such a constraint. The method of introducing the required behaviour to the class needs to comply with that.
i missed the part about the constructor.
agreed!
Sorry, but i'm a Code::Blocks man now.
I am guessing that this function may be something that AngryStyro wants to use to simplify the implementation of the functions in the public interface of the class, so making it a private member function may be ideal. If this function can be written as a non-member non-friend, Daved's unnamed namespace suggestion should work.More fundamentally, if the function is relevant to implementing your class, why is it being kept in a separate function? The obvious approach would be to place relevant functionality into one of the declared members of the class (eg into the constructor).
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart WayOriginally Posted by Bjarne Stroustrup (2000-10-14)
If you want to use a function 'g' in the constructor of a given class 'A', but 'g' is not declared as a member nor a friend of 'A', why not make 'g' a static function?
Or is this merely what Daved was saying..
No, Daved is saying that 'g' should be a non-member non-friend function in an unnamed namespace, not a static member function (unless by "static function" you actually mean a non-member function, i.e., a free function).If you want to use a function 'g' in the constructor of a given class 'A', but 'g' is not declared as a member nor a friend of 'A', why not make 'g' a static function?
Or is this merely what Daved was saying..
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
If you meant static non-member, then yes the unnamed namespace is preferred over that.
If you mean static member, you can't do that without modifying the header, which breaks the original constraint.
I'm not arguing with your general observation, laserlight.
To say the least, it is relatively rare for even experienced programmers to have a problem like this and even rarer for students, so I'm curious about the specific reason in this case.
