• Burton Radons (4/4) Jul 07 2003 When in a struct method, the "this" is a pointer to the struct. It'd be...
• Sean L. Palmer (5/9) Jul 08 2003 Why would you ever want a class method to be able to change its 'this'
• Burton Radons (19/21) Jul 08 2003 I'm not talking about "this" in class, only about struct. This is
• Sean L. Palmer (5/26) Jul 10 2003 You're saying it should be a reference instead of a pointer.
• Farmer (6/17) Jul 28 2003 Actually, "this" can be null, especially since Walter allowed

Burton Radons <loth users.sourceforge.net> writes:

When in a struct method, the "this" is a pointer to the struct.  It'd be 
better for language leveraging, some clumsy syntax with operator 
overloading, and consistent syntax if "this" were an inout reference 
instead.

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> writes:

Why would you ever want a class method to be able to change its 'this'
pointer?  C++ makes this const for a good reason.

Sean

"Burton Radons" <loth users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
news:bedj00$20vt$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 When in a struct method, the "this" is a pointer to the struct.  It'd be
 better for language leveraging, some clumsy syntax with operator
 overloading, and consistent syntax if "this" were an inout reference
 instead.

Burton Radons <loth users.sourceforge.net> writes:

Sean L. Palmer wrote:
 Why would you ever want a class method to be able to change its 'this'
 pointer?  C++ makes this const for a good reason.

I'm not talking about "this" in class, only about struct.  This is 
currently how it's done:

struct vec3
{
    vec3 mulass (vec3 other)
    {
       return *this = *this * other;
    }
}

Pointers can be more than one cell in length, can be null, and can be 
re-assigned.  "this" in struct is invalid on all counts:

    void foo ()
    {
       vec3 bar;
       if (this === null) /* Never true */
       this [1]; /* Invalid */
       this = &bar; /* Invalid */
    }

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> writes:

You're saying it should be a reference instead of a pointer.

I agree.

Sean

"Burton Radons" <loth users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
news:befel6$qo1$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Sean L. Palmer wrote:
 Why would you ever want a class method to be able to change its 'this'
 pointer?  C++ makes this const for a good reason.

 I'm not talking about "this" in class, only about struct.  This is
 currently how it's done:

 struct vec3
 {
     vec3 mulass (vec3 other)
     {
        return *this = *this * other;
     }
 }

 Pointers can be more than one cell in length, can be null, and can be
 re-assigned.  "this" in struct is invalid on all counts:

     void foo ()
     {
        vec3 bar;
        if (this === null) /* Never true */
        this [1]; /* Invalid */
        this = &bar; /* Invalid */
     }

Farmer <itsFarmer. freenet.de> writes:

Burton Radons <loth users.sourceforge.net> wrote in 
news:befel6$qo1$1 digitaldaemon.com:

 Pointers can be more than one cell in length, can be null, and can be 
 re-assigned.  "this" in struct is invalid on all counts:
 
     void foo ()
     {
        vec3 bar;
        if (this === null) /* Never true */
        this [1]; /* Invalid */
        this = &bar; /* Invalid */
     }
 

Actually, "this" can be null, especially since Walter allowed 
allocation of structs with new. 

Of course, I agree that making "this" should be an inout reference.


Farmer.