eureka2k
asked on
Create Object??
I have already put this question and some of the friends tried to answer it.How to create an object in c++ without instantiating the class??
someone told to do like this.
class Test
data membares;
functions;
}object;
but this again creates object..
I am trying to say what i understood....
As its known every object has pointer to its own address i.e this pointer.
So have a static method in the class and return the address of the this pointer from that static function.
And call that static method by the calss name.Store the returned address in some variable and use that variable as object.I am making any sense??
someone told to do like this.
class Test
data membares;
functions;
}object;
but this again creates object..
I am trying to say what i understood....
As its known every object has pointer to its own address i.e this pointer.
So have a static method in the class and return the address of the this pointer from that static function.
And call that static method by the calss name.Store the returned address in some variable and use that variable as object.I am making any sense??
Kimpan
No
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
It is not possible in any sense in c++ because it is an Object Oriented language. With static member function, you can call the function through class reference But It doesnot mean that this pointer is of an Object of this class. Object can only be created through instanciating a class.
What you ask is impossible, you want to create an object without instantiating the class.
Hint: "Instantiating the class" means to create an object and creating an object means to "instantiate the class". The two are two different ways to say exactly the same thing.
In a way you ask to create a painting without ever doing the action of painting. Of course you can create a copy of a painting by a xerox machine or something but that ain't a painting. A painting by its very definition is made by someone doing the job of painting it.
Another hint: static functions has no this pointer.
You can't take the this pointer from a static function, it doesn't have a this pointer to return.
What you ask for doesn't make sense.
Why on earth would you want to do something that doesn't make sense? Go and draw me a square circle and I can give you an object that wasn't instantiated.
Alf
Hint: "Instantiating the class" means to create an object and creating an object means to "instantiate the class". The two are two different ways to say exactly the same thing.
In a way you ask to create a painting without ever doing the action of painting. Of course you can create a copy of a painting by a xerox machine or something but that ain't a painting. A painting by its very definition is made by someone doing the job of painting it.
Another hint: static functions has no this pointer.
You can't take the this pointer from a static function, it doesn't have a this pointer to return.
What you ask for doesn't make sense.
Why on earth would you want to do something that doesn't make sense? Go and draw me a square circle and I can give you an object that wasn't instantiated.
Alf
Static function member doesn`t have 'this' pointer and can use only other static members of this class and can`t return 'this' pointer. But you can call non-static member function of class without instancing:
class Test {
data membares;
functions;
};
Test &x = *(Test *)NULL; <-- NO INSTANCING
x.function();
or
Test *x = NULL; <-- NO INSTANCING
x->function();
If function() - is static member - it will be OK anyway, and if function() is non-static member but doesn`n use any non-static members variables of this class (but can use non-static members functions with same conditions or any static functions) - it will be OK too. All other cases - you will have Access violations about address 0x00000000 (NULL + offset of member variable) (Windows has small guard page from address 0x00000000 for using NULL pointers - using this page will be subject for exception always) Certainly, if function is non-static 'this' pointer will be NULL - you initialise it yourself :)
class Test {
data membares;
functions;
};
Test &x = *(Test *)NULL; <-- NO INSTANCING
x.function();
or
Test *x = NULL; <-- NO INSTANCING
x->function();
If function() - is static member - it will be OK anyway, and if function() is non-static member but doesn`n use any non-static members variables of this class (but can use non-static members functions with same conditions or any static functions) - it will be OK too. All other cases - you will have Access violations about address 0x00000000 (NULL + offset of member variable) (Windows has small guard page from address 0x00000000 for using NULL pointers - using this page will be subject for exception always) Certainly, if function is non-static 'this' pointer will be NULL - you initialise it yourself :)
i think the question asker is looking for a singleton
in the below example, you can only have a single copy of the singleton during the entire duration of the program. here the object is of course being initiated but it is done so only by the class itself. you can access the auto-initiated object using the static method obj(). other than this, all methods of singleton are normal methods and you can do whatever you want in them, including using "this"
for example, to call the test() method, use,
singleton::obj().test();
--- cut from here ---
class singleton {
public:
static
singleton&
obj() {
static singleton object;
return object;
}; // obj
void
test() {
std::cout << "test" << std::endl;
}; // test
private:
singleton() { };
singleton(const singleton&) { };
singleton& operator=(const singleton&) { return *this; };
~singleton() { };
}; // singleton
--- cut from here ---
in the below example, you can only have a single copy of the singleton during the entire duration of the program. here the object is of course being initiated but it is done so only by the class itself. you can access the auto-initiated object using the static method obj(). other than this, all methods of singleton are normal methods and you can do whatever you want in them, including using "this"
for example, to call the test() method, use,
singleton::obj().test();
--- cut from here ---
class singleton {
public:
static
singleton&
obj() {
static singleton object;
return object;
}; // obj
void
test() {
std::cout << "test" << std::endl;
}; // test
private:
singleton() { };
singleton(const singleton&) { };
singleton& operator=(const singleton&) { return *this; };
~singleton() { };
}; // singleton
--- cut from here ---
Static function can not return this pointer.
Also,
Joker's "solution" isn't a solution.
It require you to make a null pointer cast into a pointer of the specified type and then call a function through that null poointer. That is not valid portable code.
p -> func()
if p is a type that can legally call func() then if p is a null pointer value then the effect of such a statement is undefined.
Check up the meaning of "undefined" in language standards.
Null reference is even worse than a null pointer.
In short Joker's solution is a joke.
And yes, static functions do not have this pointer.
The point is that the original question asks for something that is impossible and doesn't make sense. Which is what we have tried to say here many times.
Now, eureka2k, accept an answer and close this silly question and move on to more fruitful things in life. Things that make sense and so on.
Alf
Joker's "solution" isn't a solution.
It require you to make a null pointer cast into a pointer of the specified type and then call a function through that null poointer. That is not valid portable code.
p -> func()
if p is a type that can legally call func() then if p is a null pointer value then the effect of such a statement is undefined.
Check up the meaning of "undefined" in language standards.
Null reference is even worse than a null pointer.
In short Joker's solution is a joke.
And yes, static functions do not have this pointer.
The point is that the original question asks for something that is impossible and doesn't make sense. Which is what we have tried to say here many times.
Now, eureka2k, accept an answer and close this silly question and move on to more fruitful things in life. Things that make sense and so on.
Alf
> "The point is that the original question asks for something that is impossible and doesn't make sense. Which is what we have tried to say here many times."
salte, yes, it is impossible to use a class without creating an object but from his/her question, it seems a singleton might be what s/he is looking for, as that would give the *illusion* of using the class without explicitly creating an instance
for example, in the example i gave above, you never ever create a singleton object ( in fact, as you probably noticed, you can't ) but you can access a copy of it via the static obj() method, which creates the instance behind the scenes. if the user of the singleton class had the header file only, s/he would have no idea that an object was being actually created in the background. well, any reasonable c++ person would know that but a newbie might easily be fooled with such a trick
salte, yes, it is impossible to use a class without creating an object but from his/her question, it seems a singleton might be what s/he is looking for, as that would give the *illusion* of using the class without explicitly creating an instance
for example, in the example i gave above, you never ever create a singleton object ( in fact, as you probably noticed, you can't ) but you can access a copy of it via the static obj() method, which creates the instance behind the scenes. if the user of the singleton class had the header file only, s/he would have no idea that an object was being actually created in the background. well, any reasonable c++ person would know that but a newbie might easily be fooled with such a trick
well, strictly speaking you do create the object.
class foo {
private:
static foo bar;
...other members...
public:
static foo & baz();
...other functions...
};
If you have a header file like this then you also typically have a cpp file like the following:
#include <foo.h>
foo foo::bar(....); // global object constructed.
....
So the object is still constructed. It's even constructed before main() is called which is probably why you get the feel that it isn't ever constructed.
It is possible he wants a singleton object, however, the above manner is also useful for non-singleton objects, you could have a static function which acted almost as a constructor and constructed the object on the fly from heap for example without having the actual constructor accessible from outside. This is typically used for cases where you create a class with a data layout that depend on data following the actual class for example:
class string_t {
private:
size_t len_;
size_t sz_;
int refs_;
void * operator new(size_t sz, size_t ssz)
{ return malloc(sz + ssz); }
void * operator new(size_t /* sz */, void * p)
{ return p; }
string_t(size_t len, size_t sz) : len_(len), sz_(sz), refs_(1) {}
char * str_() const
{ return reinterpret_cast<char *>(this + 1); }
public:
~string_t();
static string_t * mk_string(const char * str);
const char * str() const { return str_(); }
....other stuff....
};
string_t * string_t::mk_string(const char * str)
{
size_t len = strlen(str);
size_t sz = len >= 100 ? len + 1 : 128;
string_t * s = new(sz) string_t(len,sz);
strcpy(s -> str_(), str);
return s;
}
Here the string data is placed immediately after the class and this is enabled by hiding the constructor so the user cannot access it and he can only create objects of the class using the static member function mk_string() which ensures that the data is allocated in that exact manner.
I agree that you should rather use std::string than such a class but that is beside the point here. The point is that by making the constructor or the object available through a static function you can hide the actual construction. The object is still constructed at one time or another (either in that static function or the function accesses an object previously constructed).
His original request still makes no sense. It is possible he meant a singleton class (class with only one instance) but it is also possible he was just trying to be "smart" but it turned out it wasn't so smart after all.
Alf
class foo {
private:
static foo bar;
...other members...
public:
static foo & baz();
...other functions...
};
If you have a header file like this then you also typically have a cpp file like the following:
#include <foo.h>
foo foo::bar(....); // global object constructed.
....
So the object is still constructed. It's even constructed before main() is called which is probably why you get the feel that it isn't ever constructed.
It is possible he wants a singleton object, however, the above manner is also useful for non-singleton objects, you could have a static function which acted almost as a constructor and constructed the object on the fly from heap for example without having the actual constructor accessible from outside. This is typically used for cases where you create a class with a data layout that depend on data following the actual class for example:
class string_t {
private:
size_t len_;
size_t sz_;
int refs_;
void * operator new(size_t sz, size_t ssz)
{ return malloc(sz + ssz); }
void * operator new(size_t /* sz */, void * p)
{ return p; }
string_t(size_t len, size_t sz) : len_(len), sz_(sz), refs_(1) {}
char * str_() const
{ return reinterpret_cast<char *>(this + 1); }
public:
~string_t();
static string_t * mk_string(const char * str);
const char * str() const { return str_(); }
....other stuff....
};
string_t * string_t::mk_string(const char * str)
{
size_t len = strlen(str);
size_t sz = len >= 100 ? len + 1 : 128;
string_t * s = new(sz) string_t(len,sz);
strcpy(s -> str_(), str);
return s;
}
Here the string data is placed immediately after the class and this is enabled by hiding the constructor so the user cannot access it and he can only create objects of the class using the static member function mk_string() which ensures that the data is allocated in that exact manner.
I agree that you should rather use std::string than such a class but that is beside the point here. The point is that by making the constructor or the object available through a static function you can hide the actual construction. The object is still constructed at one time or another (either in that static function or the function accesses an object previously constructed).
His original request still makes no sense. It is possible he meant a singleton class (class with only one instance) but it is also possible he was just trying to be "smart" but it turned out it wasn't so smart after all.
Alf
I notice that after eureka2k had his original posting here, he hasn't even once commented on the replies he got, which also makes me believe he didn't really have a problem or issue that needed to be solved and that he just made a weak attempt at being "smart".
Alf
Alf
> "His original request still makes no sense. It is possible he meant a singleton class (class with only one instance) but it is also possible he was just trying to be "smart" but it turned out it wasn't so smart after all."
granted; that might be the case, too and as he didn't give any feedback, i guess we'll never know... oh well, more than enough discussion for 20 points ;-)
granted; that might be the case, too and as he didn't give any feedback, i guess we'll never know... oh well, more than enough discussion for 20 points ;-)
This question has been abandoned. I will make a recommendation to the moderators on its resolution in a week or two. I appreciate any comments that would help me to make a recommendation.
In the absence of responses, I may recommend DELETE unless it is clear to me that it has value as a PAQ. Silence = you don't care.
PLEASE DO NOT ACCEPT THIS COMMENT AS AN ANSWER!
Udil
EE Cleanup Volunteer
In the absence of responses, I may recommend DELETE unless it is clear to me that it has value as a PAQ. Silence = you don't care.
PLEASE DO NOT ACCEPT THIS COMMENT AS AN ANSWER!
Udil
EE Cleanup Volunteer