. as an alternative to m_

[Chris Becke]

I know this isn't the place for suggestions, but I just need to vent. Why
dont c++ compilers let us use . as way of saying "this->", and hence an
alternative for m_

struct foo {
int a;
void bar(int a){
.a = a;
}
};

[Victor Bazarov]

Re: . as an alternative to m_

Chris Becke wrote:

I know this isn't the place for suggestions, but I just need to vent. Why
dont c++ compilers let us use . as way of saying "this->", and hence an
alternative for m_
>
struct foo {
int a;
void bar(int a){
.a = a;
}
};

IMHO, 'this->' (or, if you define "self" as "(*this)", 'self.') is
actually more readable than the dot. I would actually prefer to see
this-or m_ than the dot. Besides, 'a' is such a dumb name for a
variable; sorry if that offends you.

The reason is that it doesn't buy enough (or anything, really) and it
complicates the grammar, most likely.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[Chris Becke]

Re: . as an alternative to m_

its more complicated htan nothing but it is unambiguous - so not that much
more complicated methinks.

And, a was chosen to be dumb :P Its just a sample for illustration purposes
afterall.

I think . like this has a neat symmetry.

You could write an external function

void bar(foo & s, int a){
s.a = a;
}

or a member function (as before).

void foo:bar(int a){
.a = a;
}

I don't know. Written like that its a rather logical extension.

"Victor Bazarov" <v.Abazarov@com Acast.netwrote in message
news:g79o9o$o3o $1@news.datemas .de...

Chris Becke wrote:

>I know this isn't the place for suggestions, but I just need to vent. Why
>dont c++ compilers let us use . as way of saying "this->", and hence an
>alternative for m_
>>
>struct foo {
> int a;
> void bar(int a){
> .a = a;
> }
>};

>
IMHO, 'this->' (or, if you define "self" as "(*this)", 'self.') is
actually more readable than the dot. I would actually prefer to see
this-or m_ than the dot. Besides, 'a' is such a dumb name for a
variable; sorry if that offends you.
>
The reason is that it doesn't buy enough (or anything, really) and it
complicates the grammar, most likely.
>
V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[=?UTF-8?B?RXJpayBXaWtzdHLDtm0=?=]

Re: . as an alternative to m_

On 2008-08-05 16:25, Chris Becke wrote:

I know this isn't the place for suggestions, but I just need to vent. Why
dont c++ compilers let us use . as way of saying "this->", and hence an
alternative for m_
>
struct foo {
int a;
void bar(int a){
.a = a;
}
};

Because it is less verbose and thus less good. If the time saved by
typing "." instead of "this->" is significant it means you are not
thinking enough before you start coding.

Besides, using cryptic characters to mean different things leads to
pearl syntax, which can easily be confused with cussing.

--
Erik Wikström

[red floyd]

Re: . as an alternative to m_

On Aug 5, 7:25 am, "Chris Becke" <chris.be...@gm ail.comwrote:

I know this isn't the place for suggestions, but I just need to vent. Why
dont c++ compilers let us use . as way of saying "this->", and hence an
alternative for m_
>
struct foo {
  int a;
  void bar(int a){
    .a = a;
  }
>
};
>

Because you don't need m_? Because you don't need this->? Because
having a member function parameter named the same as a member variable
is suboptimal code?

struct foo {
int a;
void bar(int a_) {
a = a_;
}
};

What's the problem?

[Matthias Buelow]

Re: . as an alternative to m_

Chris Becke wrote:

void foo:bar(int a){
.a = a;
}

What is more annoying is that the following doesn't work:

void foo::bar(int a)
: a(a)
{ /* ... */ }

Instead, you have to use something like

void foo::bar(int a_)
: a(a_)
{ /* ... */ }

There's no point in that, it's simply fkuced-up scoping rules.

[Matthias Buelow]

Re: . as an alternative to m_

void foo::bar(int a)
: a(a)

Err, make that foo::foo of course.

[Rolf Magnus]

Re: . as an alternative to m_

Matthias Buelow wrote:

Chris Becke wrote:
>

> void foo:bar(int a){
> .a = a;
> }

>
What is more annoying is that the following doesn't work:
>
void foo::bar(int a)
: a(a)
{ /* ... */ }

But it does.

Instead, you have to use something like
>
void foo::bar(int a_)
: a(a_)
{ /* ... */ }

No, you don't have to.

[Matthias Buelow]

Re: . as an alternative to m_

Rolf Magnus wrote:

>void foo::bar(int a)
> : a(a)

>
But it does.

Err. When did this creep in? I remember getting errors when I tried that.

[Victor Bazarov]

Re: . as an alternative to m_

Matthias Buelow wrote:

Chris Becke wrote:
>

> void foo:bar(int a){
> .a = a;
> }

>
What is more annoying is that the following doesn't work:
>
void foo::bar(int a)
: a(a)
{ /* ... */ }

It does, actually. Have you even tried?

>
Instead, you have to use something like
>
void foo::bar(int a_)
: a(a_)
{ /* ... */ }
>
There's no point in that, it's simply fkuced-up scoping rules.

I suggest you actually try it before putting your foot in your mouth.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[Victor Bazarov]

Re: . as an alternative to m_

Matthias Buelow wrote:

Rolf Magnus wrote:
>

>>void foo::bar(int a)
>> : a(a)

>But it does.

>
Err. When did this creep in? I remember getting errors when I tried that.

You must have really good memory. I don't remember ever getting any
errors in that situation. Of course, nothing beats getting a false
impression of the "fkuced-up scoping rules" like using a buggy compiler.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[Matthias Buelow]

Re: . as an alternative to m_

Victor Bazarov wrote:

You must have really good memory. I don't remember ever getting any
errors in that situation. Of course, nothing beats getting a false
impression of the "fkuced-up scoping rules" like using a buggy compiler.

This is really puzzling me now. I've been using that "workaround " for
quite some time and have always been mildly annoyed that I had to do it
that way. Well, good to know now it isn't necessary. :)

[kwikius]

Re: . as an alternative to m_


"Victor Bazarov" <v.Abazarov@com Acast.netwrote in message
news:g79o9o$o3o $1@news.datemas .de...

Besides, 'a' is such a dumb name for a variable; sorry if that offends
you.

Whats wrong with a? Nothing wrong with a. I always use a for all my
variables. Stand up for a I say !

regards
Andy Little

[acehreli@gmail.com]

Re: . as an alternative to m_

On Aug 5, 9:30 am, Rolf Magnus <ramag...@t-online.dewrote:

Matthias Buelow wrote:

What is more annoying is that the following doesn't work:

>

void foo::bar(int a)
  : a(a)
{ /* ... */ }

>
But it does.
>

Instead, you have to use something like

>

void foo::bar(int a_)
  : a(a_)
{ /* ... */ }

>
No, you don't have to.

The problem is when we get in to the constructor body, where 'a'
starts referring to the argument, not the member. :( So

a = 42;

doesn't change the object.

Ali

[Victor Bazarov]

Re: . as an alternative to m_

kwikius wrote:

"Victor Bazarov" <v.Abazarov@com Acast.netwrote in message
news:g79o9o$o3o $1@news.datemas .de...
>

> Besides, 'a' is such a dumb name for a variable; sorry if that offends
>you.

>
Whats wrong with a? Nothing wrong with a. I always use a for all my
variables. Stand up for a I say !

I don't like 'a',
I don't like 'k',
No, I don't like them! Non, nein, nay!

I can write 'i',
I do use 'Pi',
Or 'z', or 'x', or even 'y'.

But spare me 'p',
Or 'l', or 'c'.
They don't say 'nuff, do you agree?

:-)

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask