Fundamental question about visibility

[Casper Bang]

My question is fundamental I beleive but it has been teasing me for a while:

I have two classes in my app. The first class is instantiated as a member of
my second class. Within this first class, a method (event) needs to be able
to invoke methods of the second class. With static classes its possible but
this is not desirable. There's obviouly some visibility problem I am not
familiar with. It is not a parent-child relationship since there's no
enheritance is it? (If so, something like GetParent().Wan tToBeCalled() would
be the right way I guess...)
class FirstClass{
public:
void TriggeringEvent (); // When this is called, invoke
WantToBeCalled of CS
};

class SecondClass{
public:
FirstClass FS;
void WantToBeCalled( ); //
};

SecondClass CS;
....

What fundamental "visibility issue" haven't I understood correct? I've
looked at "export" directives and also suspect namespaces could have
something to do with it but I am getting tired or trial-and-error without
success.

Thanks in Advance,
Casper

[WW]

jeffc wrote:

Had I been more specfic in my example, people would criticize that
this is a ANSI C++ group not dealing with MSVC++ or the MFC
library...

Of course - then you would have gotten no answer at all.

I start to recall why did I killfile you once already. If you did care to
look at the thread you would see that it is old news. Not only he has got
an answer but it seems he was happy with it.

--
WW aka Attila

[jeffc]

"WW" <wo***@freemail .hu> wrote in message
news:bk******** **@phys-news1.kolumbus. fi...

jeffc wrote:

Had I been more specfic in my example, people would criticize that
this is a ANSI C++ group not dealing with MSVC++ or the MFC
library...

Of course - then you would have gotten no answer at all.

I start to recall why did I killfile you once already. If you did care to
look at the thread you would see that it is old news. Not only he has got
an answer but it seems he was happy with it.

Oh, you mean like when the guy asked "My question is where is the correct
(and best way) to initialize [static class member] variables?" and you
replied "Your question is Windows (DLL) specific." simply because he
mentioned he was writing a Windows DLL?

[jeffc]

"WW" <wo***@freemail .hu> wrote in message
news:bk******** **@phys-news1.kolumbus. fi...

There are no methods in C++. There are member functions.
Oh brother. <warning>Pedant Police<warning>

Please, if you *know* what method means in the realm of the C++

language... by all means, post it here!

I'll let you read about it "The C++ Programming Language" by Bjarne
Stroustrup. In the meantime, if you can possibly be any more pedantic,
please do. It would amaze me.

[WW]

jeffc wrote:

"WW" <wo***@freemail .hu> wrote in message
news:bk******** **@phys-news1.kolumbus. fi...

jeffc wrote:

Had I been more specfic in my example, people would criticize that
this is a ANSI C++ group not dealing with MSVC++ or the MFC
library...

Of course - then you would have gotten no answer at all.

I start to recall why did I killfile you once already. If you did
care to look at the thread you would see that it is old news. Not
only he has got an answer but it seems he was happy with it.

Oh, you mean like when the guy asked "My question is where is the
correct (and best way) to initialize [static class member]
variables?" and you replied "Your question is Windows (DLL)
specific." simply because he mentioned he was writing a Windows DLL?

Quit trolling. Look at the original post there. He uses the standard way
to initialize the members but it does not happen. At least that what he
says.

--
WW aka Attila

[WW]

jeffc wrote:

"WW" <wo***@freemail .hu> wrote in message
news:bk******** **@phys-news1.kolumbus. fi...

There are no methods in C++. There are member functions.

Oh brother. <warning>Pedant Police<warning>

Please, if you *know* what method means in the realm of the C++
language... by all means, post it here!

I'll let you read about it "The C++ Programming Language" by Bjarne
Stroustrup. In the meantime, if you can possibly be any more
pedantic, please do. It would amaze me.

You mean the quote that some people, sometimes may call virtual member
functions methods? A very widely accepted definition. See the original
post of this thread.

If you choose to use a vague and confusing term (with no exact definition)
by all means do it. But then do not wonder if people think you are not here
to help. BTW as it happens it is not only me who thinks that it is not the
luckiest thing to use the non-existing C++ term method in C++ discussion.
Steve Dewhurts's (not so) new book just says the same. Conincidence that a
co-worker of Bjarne Stroutrup, the lead designer and implementer of the
first non-cfront C++ compiler, former principal on the ANSI/ISO C++
standardization committee happens to have the same opinion? Maybe. Maybe
he just happened to eat somewhere the same poisoned food I did. But I beg
to think otherwise.

--
WW aka Attila

[Casper Bang]

Adding custom constructors for passing of desired objects works but is not
exactly an elegant solution.
I solved it with the suspected GetParent call:

((<DerivedClass >)GetParent()). <MemberName>
^
Returns base class!

....but I had to cast to the overidden class and NOT rely on C++ to know
this! I would've thought GetParent pointed to the new class and not the old
but maybe this is simply a MFC specific twist. One more lesson learned!

Thanks for the feedback,
Casper

----------

"WW" <wo***@freemail .hu> wrote in message
news:bk******** **@phys-news1.kolumbus. fi...

WW wrote:
[SNIP]
Update

// Overide the CEdit class so we can capture CTRL + ENTER events
class CModifiedEdit : public CEdit
{
CMainWindow *parent;
Here I hope a *lot* that CEdit does have a virtual destructor. In our

case it does not really matter (there is no descruction for a pointer and Windows will release the memory properly) but according to Standard C++ it is better be there. (Also in your code CMainWindow will always destroy CModifiedEdit as CModifiedEdit, but later if you go dynamic about the GUI it might not be the case.)

public:
CModifiedEdit(C MainWindow *mamma) : parent(mamma) { ; }
afx_msg void OnKeyDown(UINT nChar, UINT nRepCnt, UINT nFlags);
};

[SNIP]
--
WW aka Attila

[WW]

Casper Bang wrote:

Adding custom constructors for passing of desired objects works but
is not exactly an elegant solution.
I solved it with the suspected GetParent call:

((<DerivedClass >)GetParent()). <MemberName>
^
Returns base class!

...but I had to cast to the overidden class and NOT rely on C++ to
know this! I would've thought GetParent pointed to the new class and
not the old but maybe this is simply a MFC specific twist. One more
lesson learned!

Don't top post! I will not suggest using templates to someone possibly
using VC++ 6.0.

--
WW aka Attila

[jeffc]

"WW" <wo***@freemail .hu> wrote in message
news:bk******** **@phys-news1.kolumbus. fi...

I'll let you read about it "The C++ Programming Language" by Bjarne
Stroustrup. In the meantime, if you can possibly be any more
pedantic, please do. It would amaze me.
You mean the quote that some people, sometimes may call virtual member
functions methods? A very widely accepted definition. See the original
post of this thread.

I don't need to look past the post that said "There are no methods in C++."
If you choose to use a vague and confusing term (with no exact definition)
by all means do it. But then do not wonder if people think you are not here to help.

Riiiiiiight, Mr. Pedant. No one had a problem with the OP's question except
you. Now, who wasn't here to help, but to display his dictionary knowledge
of the C++ language?

[Shane Beasley]

"WW" <wo***@freemail .hu> wrote in message news:<bk******* ***@phys-news1.kolumbus. fi>...

Please, if you *know* what method means in the realm of the C++ language...
by all means, post it here!

<http://www.nightflight .com/foldoc-bin/foldoc.cgi?meth od>

"The name given in Smalltalk and other object-oriented languages to a
procedure or routine associated with one or more classes. An object of
a certain class knows how to perform actions, e.g. printing itself or
creating a new instance of itself, rather than the function (e.g.
printing) knowing how to handle different types of object."

Sounds like a virtual function to me. Actually, FOLDOC also mentions
the concept of a "class method" -- that's a static member function, of
course.

Given this, one might say that it is incorrect to use "method" to
describe a non-virtual member function, although I have yet to find
any such use to be confusing or misleading, so I don't even bother
bringing that up. I might almost mention it if a non-member function
were called a method, though.

- Shane

[WW]

jeffc wrote:

"WW" <wo***@freemail .hu> wrote in message
news:bk******** **@phys-news1.kolumbus. fi...

I'll let you read about it "The C++ Programming Language" by Bjarne
Stroustrup. In the meantime, if you can possibly be any more
pedantic, please do. It would amaze me.
You mean the quote that some people, sometimes may call virtual
member functions methods? A very widely accepted definition. See
the original post of this thread.

I don't need to look past the post that said "There are no methods in
C++."

Again: you refer to TC++PL for what method means. That says: *some* call
virtual member functions methods. My proof: look at what the OPs original
post and realise that he was *not* using method in the sense Mr. Stroustrup
says *some* (apparently other) people do.

Stop trolling.

If you choose to use a vague and confusing term (with no exact
definition) by all means do it. But then do not wonder if people
think you are not here to help.

Riiiiiiight, Mr. Pedant.

Please read my name Mr. Infantile. It is not Mr. Pedant. Stop trolling.
No one had a problem with the OP's question
except you.
I had no problem with the question. I have answered it. Stop trolling.
Now, who wasn't here to help, but to display his
dictionary knowledge of the C++ language?

And what are you here for? To get into every thread and try to attack me
because you think it is cool? Stop trolling. You help none, on the
contrary.

BTW NICE SNIPPING! How come you have snipped out that Steve Dewhurst's book
(C++ Gothcas) exactly my advice: do not use the word method in C++
discussions? Ah. Because that was showing that all you do is troll to
practice your ego.

The OP had no problem with my advice. The OP was (instead of you) showing
no attitude and has got answer to his questions. So why don't you get lost
for ever? It is clear you do not have the mental capacity to help, so you
troll. No need for that. Find another place where you can scream and
wallow on the ground to get into the center of attention. Stop trolling.

--
WW aka Attila