I've defined a class with a copy constructor. Some sample code:
Class* c = new Class(*this) // My copy constructor must take in a const Class&
And the compiler gives:
error: cannot convert 'Class' to 'Class*' in initialization
Why does this syntax work with other data types? For example, int* MyInt = new int; compiles fine. What about a copy constructor makes it fail?
I have a class containing a map member that I want to initialize at declaration time. I know I can do it in the cpp file but I'm having a problem with the order of initialization (static initialization order fiasco).
My questions are:
Is it possible that the scenario in which, the Test's constructor's implementation and the map initialization instruction are in the same cpp file and constructor is called when the map is not initialized yet, could happen?
Is it possible to initialize the map in class like I did? I get these errors:
in-class initialization of static data member 'std::map<std::basic_string<char>, Test*> Test::a' of incomplete type
temporary of non-literal type 'std::map<std::basic_string<char>, Test*>' in a constant expression
If yes, does this initialization resolve the static initialization order fiasco?
class Test {
public:
static std::map<std::string, Test*> a = {};//this is an error
Test(std::string ID) {
[Code] ....
i'm currently working on a research project and i've been given some specifications
Is there a way i can access/use the array initialisation list i.e
{value,value,value}; .
For my own class? Like this
myclass foo={value,value,value};
Is it possible to initialize class member variables in their definition statement instead of using a constructor?
Is the code bellow correct?
class rectangle
{
float a=0;
float b=0;
public:
string color="Red";
...
};
Which C++ Standard allows it?
I recently discovered the new - new to me anyway! - feature of modern C++ that allows you to set the initial value of a data member when you declare it:
class CINTWrapper{
private:
int m_iData=0;
};
This even extends to calling member functions that work with initialization I believe:
class CStringWrapper{
private:
wchar_t* Allocate_Array(const int iBufferSize);
wchar_t* m_pString=Allocate_Array(1);
};
At first, this seemed an extremely useful piece of functionality that C++ had been lacking all along. However, the more I thought about it the more it struck me this feature actually undermines one of the principle design elements of the language - that being the Constructor.
As I understand it the primary purpose of the Constructor is specifically to give the programmer a place where it is guaranteed he can always initialize his data members before anything else is done with the class. However, given the new initialization rules this is no longer necessary. So it largely seems to me that Constructors as a whole are no longer necessary either! Copy-Constructors are a special and vital case. Admittedly when I was using them for their intended purpose I hated either the redundancy you had to introduce across multiple Constructors; those with and without arguments and so on, or alternately the fine tuning of helper-functions to do common initialization between these variants. Now however I sort of regret this cast-iron rule has been taken away.
As a last point, I am trying to change the way I think about programming. I am trying to employ more objects than pure C-style ('int' or 'double', etc) data types and especially to move into templates (although absolutely NOT the Hewlett Packard template library!). Given my current understanding of inheritance in particular it seems to me that using pre-initialized data members rather than Constructor-initialization makes object derivation even more complicated, not less so.
Code:
class Base {
public:
int base;
Base(int init=0):base(init){}
virtual ~Base(){}
[Code] .....
Invalid initialization of non-const reference of type 'Base&' from an rvalue of type 'Derived'
What does it mean, and why can't I return the Derived class by value (I'm trying to create an exact copy of Derived).
Code:
template<class T>
class Convert {
T data;
public:
Convert(const T& tData = T()) : data(tData)
[Code] ....
Why do we use operator? Is float and double function names below?
Code:
Convert<int>::operator<float> float();
Convert<int>::operator<double> double();
I have encountered a problem with template class. I have made a template class that converts a value into a string, and then made another template class that converts string to T if its possible. Now I need to overload >> and << operators for type T.
template<typename T>
string toString (const T &value) // convert a value into a string {
ostringstream os;
//os << value;
return os.str();
[Code] ....
i am trying to create a firework display by reading in the fireworks off a .xml file, which will then iterate through and launch each firework.
I followed a tutorial on dinomage to find out how to use tinyxml, i learnt that i can store the attributes into char pointers but i dont know how to convert them to GLfloats to store them in my class variables.
I did try using atof but when i ran the program i got loads of errors which im guessing is because the pointer only stores the address which im passing to my variable.
Update
i have found out that tinyxml is not compatible with vs2010 but tinyxml 2 is, so i have changed my code but am still having trouble loading my attributes i have added error checking, and it prints out that the xml has loaded but then it wont load the root
updated code
my code: Firework.h
Code:
#ifndef FIREWORK_H
#define FIREWORK_H
#include <cstdlib>
#include <GLGL.h>
#include <string>
[Code].....
I am attempting to write a program that converts binary to base10, and vice versa.
But in the function for converting Base10 to Binary, just as it reaches the line of code
int* binary = new int [a];
it skips straight to the int main()
All I'm attempting to do with that line of code is initialize the variable "a" into the elements of the array "binary".
[URL] ....
There are two ways to access the members of class A inside class B:
1) Making an instance of class A in class B
2) Deriving class B from class A
So what is the basic difference in both ways as we can do same kind of work with both ways?
The case is like
class B{
public:
somedata;
somefunction();
}
class A{
public:
data;
function();
}
in somefunction i want a pointer to current object of class A m new to c++
Say I have 3 classes:
class Player {
public:
virtual func1();
[code]....
Say in my main class, I have a function fight(Player p1, Player p2) and I would like to do something like this in the fight function, given that p1 is the human and p2 is the computer:
//function fight()
fight(Player p1, Player p2) {
p1.func2();
}
//using function fight()
fight(human, computer);
When I compile the program, I got this: error: ‘class Player’ has no member named 'func2()' What can I do to allow p1 to call func2 inside fight()? I'm not allowed to use pointers as the parameter for fight() and have to use the signature fight(Player p1, Player p2).
The compiler creates virtual table for the base class and also for the derived class whether we override it or not.
That means each class has separate virtual table. when we get the size of the each class with out any data members... the size of base is -- 4 bytes(64 bit) and the size of derived is -- 1
The size of base class 4 is correct since it creates the virtual pointer internally and its size is member data + virtual pointer, but it in this case I have included any data members so it has given 4 byts.
But why in case of derived is 1 byte, since it the derived class has overridden the virtual function from base, this will also contains the virtual pointer which will be pointing to derived class Vtable, it the size of the class suppose to be 4 instead of 1 byte.
#include<iostream>
class A{
public:
[Code].....
I have my main.cpp like this:
#include <iostream>
#include "curve1.h"
#include "curve2.h"
using namespace std;
int main() {
Curve1 curve1Obj;
Curve2 curve2Obj;
[Code]...
Base class Score has two derived classes Curve1 and Curve2. There are two curve() functions, one is in Curve1 and other in Curve2 classes. getSize() returns the value of iSize.
My base class header score.h looks like this:
#ifndef SCORE_H
#define SCORE_H
class Score {
private:
int *ipScore;
float fAverage;
int iSize;
[Code]...
You can see that I have used curve1Obj to enter scores, calculate average and output. So if I call getSize() function with cuve1Obj, it gives the right size that I took from user in enterScores() function. Also the result is same if I call getSize() in score.cpp definition file in any of the functions (obviously).
.....
The problem is when I call curve() function of Curve2 class in main (line 23) with the object curve2Obj, it creates a new set of ipScore, fAverage and iSize (i think?) with garbage values. So when I call getSize() in curve() definition in curve2.cpp, it outputs the garbage. .....
How can I cause it to return the old values that are set in curve1.cpp?
Here is my curve2.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include "curve2.h"
using namespace std;
void Curve2::curve() {
cout << "getSize() returns: " << getSize() << endl; // out comes the garbage
}
Can I use a function to simply put values from old to new variables? If yes then how?
How to initialize a static member of a class with template, which type is related to a nested class?
This code works (without nested class):
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
struct B{
B(){cout<<"here"<<endl;}
};
template<typename Z>
[Code] ,....
Linker error.
First off the error
Code:
Error1error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol "public: __thiscall ReachTop<class Character>::ReachTop<class Character>(class Character *)" (??0?$ReachTop@VCharacter@@@@QAE@PAVCharacter@@@Z) referenced in function "void __cdecl `dynamic initializer for 'gReachTop''(void)" (??__EgReachTop@@YAXXZ)Main.objDecisionTest
Reach Top class inherits from Goal Class
Goal Class
Code:
#ifndef _GOAL_H
#define _GOAL_H
#include "Action.h"
#include <list>
template <class T>
class Goal
[Code] ....
Code to create
Code:
Character* gCharacter = new Character(1, gWorld);
Goal<Character>* gReachTop = new ReachTop<Character>(gCharacter);
I can provide the character class and its inheritance aswell if you like.
In this book, item 3 is about never treat arrays polymorphically. In the latter part of this item, the author talks about the result of deleting an array of derived class objects through a base class pointer is undefined. What does it mean? I have an example here,
Code:
class B
{
public:
B():_y(1){}
virtual ~B() {
cout<<"~B()"<<endl;
[Code] ....
This sample code does exactly what I want. So does the author mean the way I did is undefined?
Please consider the following code :
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class superclass;
class subclass1;
class subclass2;
[Code] ....
As you can see I want to create a dynamically allocated storage of references to a parent class each of which can then point to a child class, how ever I do not know how to extract the child class out again from that array so i may access its variable b.
Let's say I have a Car object , and it contains inner Engine object.
Code:
struct Car{
Engine mEngine;
};
In order to initialize the engine object NOT by the default constructor (if it has any) , we use initialization semantics:
Code:
Car::Car:
mEngin(arg1,arg2,...)
{
other stuff here
}
Now it gets tricky: Let's say a Car objects has 10 inner objects, each object has about 5 variables in it . Car is a base class for , e.g. , Toyota class. you don't want the Car class to have a constructor with 50 arguments. Can the inner objects of Car be initialized from the base class , e.g. Toyota?
Code:
class Toyota:
Car(...),
mEngine(...),
mGear(..)
{
...
};
The other options are:
1) like said , create a Car constructor which gets 50 arguments, then initialize Car as whole from Toyota - the code becomes less readable and less intuitive
2) Car constructor which get built-objects as arguments and initialize the inner objects with copy constructor . the code gets more readable but then you create many excess objects .
So I have a base class, lets call it base. In base I have a virtual function called update(), update just couts "base" then I have a class derived from base called derived;
it has a function called update(), update just couts "derived" then I create a vector called Vec it's initialised like this:
std::vector<base> Vec;
then I add an element into it like this
Derived DerElement;
Vec.push_back(DerElement);
then when I type:
for (int i=0; i<Vec.size(); i++) {
Vec.at(i).Update();
}
It outputs:
Derived DerElement2;
DerElement2.Update();
and it outputs this:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
class Base {
public:
virtual void Update() {
[Code] .....
and this is it's output:
Base
Derived
Press any key to continue . . .
I would like to know if there's a way to make a method from a derived class a friend of its base class. Something like:
class Derived;
class Base {
int i, j;
friend void Derived::f();
protected:
Base();
[Code] ......
I have an example where I have a variable belonging to a base class, but I would like to tell the compiler that it actually belongs to a derived class. How can I do this?
// base class: R0
// derived class: R1
// see function SetR1 for the problem
class R0 {
public:
int a;
[Code] .....
In the project I'm currently working on I define a class that only inherits from a parent class and takes one argument.
Does this class need to be defined in the header or source file? I read different answers around the internet.
Or is it better to always split definition and logica, even for something like an operator?
I am writing a program which is using SDL library. I have two different classes which one of them is Timer Class and the other is EventHandling Class.
I need to use some member functions and variables of Timer in some Eventhandling Class member functions, Although I want to define an object of Timer in int main {} and relate it to its member function that has been used in Eventhandling member function in order that it becomes easier to handle it, I mean that I want to have for example two objects of timer and two objects of Eventhandling class for two different users.
I do not know how to relate an object of a class from int main{} to its member function which is being used in another class member function.
Lets have it as a sample code:
class Timer {
private:
int x;
public:
Timer();
get_X();
start_X();
[Code] ....
I just wondering if a base class can call the overridden function from a Derived class?
Here's an example:
//Base Class H
class BaseClass {
public:
BaseClass();
virtual ~BaseClass();
virtual void functionA();
[Code] ....
So basically, when I am creating a new object of Derived class, it will initialize BaseClass and the BaseClass will call functionA but I want it to call the function overridden by Derived class.
I know that if I call newObj->functionA it will call the overridden function. Right now I want the base class to call the overridden function "this->functionA(); in BaseClass" during its initialization. Is it possible to do that?