beginner question on successive factoring

[pauldepstein]

I'm unable to interpret this code snippet:

const A& B::C:(const unsigned short E) const
{
return F(E)->D();

}


[Above is a verbatim copy but names were replaced by A, B, C etc. to
preserve confidentiality.]

In particular, I'm unused to seeing the a::b::c structure.

Thanks for your help,

Paul Epstein

 

[Jerry Coffin]

I'm unable to interpret this code snippet:

const A& B::C:(const unsigned short E) const
{
return F(E)->D();

}


[Above is a verbatim copy but names were replaced by A, B, C etc. to
preserve confidentiality.]

In particular, I'm unused to seeing the a::b::c structure.

Think of something like:

class A {
int x;

public:

class B {
class C {
int D(const unsigned short E) const;
};
};

A(unsigned short E) : x(E) {}
};

const A& B::C:(unsigned short E) const {
return A(E + 1);
}

 

[Victor Bazarov]

I'm unable to interpret this code snippet:

const A& B::C:(const unsigned short E) const
{
return F(E)->D();

}


[Above is a verbatim copy but names were replaced by A, B, C etc. to
preserve confidentiality.]

In particular, I'm unused to seeing the a::b::c structure.

'B' is either a class or a namespace, 'C' is a member of 'B', and is
also either a class or a [nested] namespace, 'D' is the name of the
function.

namespace B {
class C {
A const& D(unsigned short) const;
};
}

or

class B {
class C {
A const& D(unsigned short) const;
};
};

V

 

[Juha Nieminen]

class A {
int x;

public:

class B {
class C {
int D(const unsigned short E) const;
};
};

A(unsigned short E) : x(E) {}
};

const A& B::C:(unsigned short E) const {
return A(E + 1);
}

You are declaring D to return an int and to be inside A::B::C,
yet in the implementation you are saying it returns a const A& and that
it's inside B::C.

I doubt that would ever compile.

 

[Jerry Coffin]

[ ... ]

You are declaring D to return an int and to be inside A::B::C,
yet in the implementation you are saying it returns a const A& and that
it's inside B::C.

Oops -- quite right. My apologies for the slip-up.

I doubt that would ever compile.

It shouldn't at any rate.