Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!brahms.udel.edu!gdtltr
From: gdtltr@brahms.udel.edu (root@research.bdi.com (Systems Research Supervisor))
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Use of this in C++ compared to self in Smalltalk
Message-ID: <20526@brahms.udel.edu>
Date: 17 Apr 91 21:46:02 GMT
References: <0094742D.B7B638A0@uno.edu> <1991Apr17.175658.13334@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <20525@brahms.udel.edu>
Organization: Brain Dead Innovations, Inc. (BDI)
Lines: 35

In article <20525@brahms.udel.edu> gdtltr@brahms.udel.edu (root@research.bdi.com (Systems Research Supervisor)) writes:
=>In article <1991Apr17.175658.13334@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ml27192@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Lanett) writes:
=>=>jncs@uno.edu writes:
=>=>
=>=>>Example : can I write :
=>=>>		int C::foo (...)
=>=>>		 {
=>=>>			...
=>=>>		   this.message
=>=>>			...
=>=>>		 }
=>=>
=>=>>where "message" is a virtual function declared in class C.
=>=>
=>=>Yes, this and self are similar. Note that this is a pointer, so
=>=>the usage is this->message (); this is in fact optional: message ()
=>=>alone will work.
=>
=>   Unless, of course, you do something stupid like making a local variable
=>which is also named "message". Then the "this" reference would be necessary
=>to force the scope into the class rather than the member function.
=>
   Or just use the scope resolution operator: C::message.

                                        Gary Duzan
                                        Time  Lord
                                    Third Regeneration



-- 
                            gdtltr@brahms.udel.edu
   _o_                      ----------------------                        _o_
 [|o o|]   Two CPU's are better than one; N CPU's would be real nice.   [|o o|]
  |_o_|           Disclaimer: I AM Brain Dead Innovations, Inc.          |_o_|