rob@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Wallen) (10/24/89)
Well, having just got my copy of Think C 4.0 torn open (you know, in christmas
present frenzy mode) and all installed, I have a couple of sorta dumb questions
to ask the world. This is the first ...
Am I missing something or is the 'A::' not necessary in the call to x() because
B has inherited it and thus 'this->x()' will do? Therefore 'x()' will do too.
struct A : direct { void x(void); };
struct B : A { void y(void); };
...
B::y(void)
{
A::x();
}
I know its not necessary because I tried compiling it and it works fine.
Why does the Think Class Library seem to specify these things when it doesnt
need to??fjlim@garnet.berkeley.edu (10/25/89)
In article <2849@murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au> rob@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Wallen) writes: >Am I missing something or is the 'A::' not necessary in the call to x() because >B has inherited it and thus 'this->x()' will do? Therefore 'x()' will do too. > >struct A : direct { void x(void); }; >struct B : A { void y(void); }; >... >B::y(void) >{ > A::x(); >} > >I know its not necessary because I tried compiling it and it works fine. >Why does the Think Class Library seem to specify these things when it doesnt >need to?? I believe that the only places where such unnecessary specifications occur in the TCL are in initialization methods. For example, CBureaucrat::IBureaucrat(aSupervisor); appears in the CDirector::IDirector() method. CDirector is a subclass of CBureaucrat, so the IBureaucrat() method is inherited and it is unnecessary to explicitly specify the class name. I included the specification as a self-documenting feature which reinforces the concept that the superclass initialization method is being called. It's a matter of personal style, similar to the choice of whether or not to prefix instance variables and methods with "this->". Greg Dow, author of the TCL