this is a pointer, it has the type Point*. If you wanted to return a pointer (Point*) you could return this (but you shouldn't here). If you want to return a reference (Point&), you must dereference the pointer with *this like you did. If you want to return an object (Point), you must also dereference the pointer with *this, and then a copy is automatically made and returned.
No I must use Point& else Its Firing wired Linker errors.
This is what I've done For Postfix
Why its firing Errors ??
Code:Point& operator++(int);And I am using it in this wayCode:Point& Point::operator++(int m=0){//What Argument would I use here what int ?? x++; y++; return *this; }Code:Point y = pt++;
If you are getting errors, post the errors exactly as they appear.
In your post (#15) above, your code was different between the two versions. In the Point& version you returned *this. In the Point version you returned this. Both should return *this.
If you are getting linker errors, that means you are doing something else wrong, but I can't tell what without looking at the code and the errors.
That is probably due to an inconsistency between your class declaration and its implementation.No I must use Point& else Its Firing wired Linker errors.
Look at CornedBee's example. You could implement your post-increment operator++ as:Why its firing Errors ??
If it does not work, then either your copy constructor or pre-increment operator++ is incorrect.Code:const Point Point::operator++(int) { Point temp(*this); ++*this; return temp; }
Anything if you are calling the operator by its name as a function, nothing if you are using it as an operator. For example:What Argument would I use here what int ??
Note also that since it is post-increment (or postfix notation, if you prefer), your example usage will result in y being a copy of pt, and pt being post-incremented. As such, make sure that you are checking for the right thing.Code:// Assume pt is a Point object. pt++; // Post-increment operator used as an operator. pt.operator++(123); // Post-increment operator called by name as a function. // Note that 123 is just an example, you can use any other int values too.
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart WayOriginally Posted by Bjarne Stroustrup (2000-10-14)
OK now this is my Compleate Code http://phpfi.com/246304
Code:const Point operator++(int);And I am getting this errorCode:const Point Point::operator++(int){ Point tmp(*this); ++*this; return tmp; }Code:/tmp/ccF6kXes.o: In function `Point::operator++(int)': op_overload.cpp:(.text+0xd9): undefined reference to `Point::Point(Point const&)' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
You did not implement the copy constructor for Point. As a quick fix, you can just remove it and let the compiler generate it for you.
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Oh! I see
This is teh declearation of My Copy ConstructorWould I Implement it in this way ??Code:Point(const Point&);//Copy ConstructorJust this ??Or I need to Specifi Any Return Type ??Code:Point::Point(const Point& pt){ this = *pt; }
The best way would be to remove it because the compiler generated one works correctly. If you implement it yourself, then you have to make sure it stays updated and correct, which can be a source of hard to find bugs.
If you were to implement it yourself, you would initialize each member variable with the member variable of the other object.
>> Or I need to Specifi Any Return Type ??
Like all other constructors, there is no return type.
I also need to learn Copy constructor
Can you give me an example ??
OK I've made this
default constructorAnd here is My Compleate code now http://phpfi.com/246309Code:Point::Point(const Point& pt){ *this = pt; }
Now When I run this Programm Post fix ++ works same as Prefix ++ Operatotr there is No Difference
here is teh Output of the ProgramCode:describing pt x = 4 y = 10 describing pt after Pre Incrementing x = 5 y = 11 describing y x = 6 y = 12 describing pt after Post Increment x = 6 y = 12 destructing destructing
Shure there is a difference. You're just testing it the wrong way
try like this
KurtCode:int main(){ Point pt(4, 10); pt.desc("pt initialized "); Point px = ++pt; px.desc("px returned from pre inc"); pt.desc("pt after Pre Incrementing"); Point py = pt++; py.desc("py returned from post inc"); pt.desc("pt after Post Increment"); }
Wow Its Working Thanks.
That's not a really sensible way to implement the copy constructor. Here's a good one:
But that's still not smart. Daved is right: remove it, because the compiler-generated one does the right thing. And because you're violating the rule of three. (Just a guideline, but an important one.)Code:Point::Point(const Point &o) : x(o.x), y(o.y) {}
Like with pointers, you need to learn not only how, but also when and why. You implement copy constructors when you need them. And, by the rule of three, you also implement the copy assignment operator and the destructor, because you will need them too in such a situation.
If you want an example where you need these, implement a resizing array similar to std::vector.
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
