Picking const vs. non-const member functions upon a call

[cheeser]

Hello all,

Please see the question in the code below...

Thanks!
Dave
#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

class foo
{
public:
foo(int d) : data(d) {}
void print() const {cout << "const" << endl;}
void print() {cout << "non-const" << endl;}

private:
int data;
};

int main()
{
foo a(42);

// The call below calls the non-const print();
// I want the const print() to be called!
// a.print();

// Here's one way to do it. Is there a more elegant way?
// Making a const is not within the scope of my question!
static_cast<con st foo>(a).print() ;

return 0;
}

[E. Robert Tisdale]

cheeser wrote:

#include <iostream>

class foo {
private:
int data;
public:
foo(int d): data(d) { }
void print(void) const {std::cout << "const" << std::endl;}
void print(void) {std::cout << "non-const" << std::endl;}
};

int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
const foo a(42);
a.print();
return 0;
}

[Mike Wahler]

"cheeser" <ch**********@y ahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vo******** ****@news.super news.com...

Hello all,

Please see the question in the code below...

Thanks!
Dave
#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

class foo
{
public:
foo(int d) : data(d) {}
void print() const {cout << "const" << endl;}
void print() {cout << "non-const" << endl;}

private:
int data;
};

int main()
{
foo a(42);

// The call below calls the non-const print();
// I want the const print() to be called!
The invoke the function with a const object.

const foo a(42);
// a.print();

// Here's one way to do it. Is there a more elegant way?
Define "elegant".
// Making a const is not within the scope of my question!
You're asking about const member functions, so yes it is,
whether you deny it or not. :-)
static_cast<con st foo>(a).print() ;

return 0;
}

What real specific problem are you trying to solve?

-Mike

[Jonathan Mcdougall]

> Please see the question in the code below...

Thanks!
Dave
#include <iostream>

using namespace std;
Are you sure you want that?
class foo
{
public:
foo(int d) : data(d) {}
void print() const {cout << "const" << endl;}
This would be called with

const foo f;
f.print();
void print() {cout << "non-const" << endl;}
And that would be called with

foo f;
f.print();
private:
int data;
};

int main()
{
foo a(42);

// The call below calls the non-const print();
// I want the const print() to be called!
// a.print();

// Here's one way to do it. Is there a more elegant way?
// Making a const is not within the scope of my question!
static_cast<con st foo>(a).print() ;

Whether a const member function will be called or not depends
on the constness of the object. Why do you want that? Perhaps
we could find another way.
Jonathan

[cheeser]

> > int main()

{
foo a(42);

// The call below calls the non-const print();
// I want the const print() to be called!
// a.print();

// Here's one way to do it. Is there a more elegant way?
// Making a const is not within the scope of my question!
static_cast<con st foo>(a).print() ;

Whether a const member function will be called or not depends
on the constness of the object. Why do you want that? Perhaps
we could find another way.

Here's the original code again:

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

class foo
{
public:
foo(int d) : data(d) {}
void print() const {cout << "const" << endl;}
void print() {cout << "non-const" << endl;}

private:
int data;
};

int main()
{
foo a(42);

// The call below calls the non-const print();
// I want the const print() to be called!
// a.print();

// Here's one way to do it. Is there a more elegant way?
// Making a const is not within the scope of my question!
static_cast<con st foo>(a).print() ;

return 0;
}
OK, let me take a stab again at articulating what I'm after. There are two
member functions in class foo that I care about: print() and print() const.
If I had a const foo, I would be restricted to calling only print() const.
However, I don't have a const foo (it's the whole point of the problem;
please don't change it to const or you'll be answering a question different
than what I asked, and one that I know the answer too!). Therefore, it is
*semantically* valid for me to call either print() or print() const. This
can be verified by removing the non-const print(). In that case, the
non-const foo object will correctly invoke print() cont.

My question is nothing more than trying to verify that, other than with a
cast to const foo, it is not *syntactically* possible for me to call print()
const (even though it is *semantically* legal, as detailed above). In other
words, I can't do this:

a.print() cost;

Hmmm, it just occurred to me that there may be a way with using a
pointer-to-member, but that would be somewhat ugly too. I think I may have
exhausted the possibilities, but I'm merely throwing this out to those more
experienced than I for confirmation...

[Mike Wahler]

"cheeser" <ch**********@y ahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vo******** ****@news.super news.com...

int main()
{
foo a(42);

// The call below calls the non-const print();
// I want the const print() to be called!
// a.print();

// Here's one way to do it. Is there a more elegant way?
// Making a const is not within the scope of my question!
static_cast<con st foo>(a).print() ;
Whether a const member function will be called or not depends
on the constness of the object. Why do you want that? Perhaps
we could find another way.

Here's the original code again:

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

class foo
{
public:
foo(int d) : data(d) {}
void print() const {cout << "const" << endl;}
void print() {cout << "non-const" << endl;}

private:
int data;
};

int main()
{
foo a(42);

// The call below calls the non-const print();
// I want the const print() to be called!
// a.print();

// Here's one way to do it. Is there a more elegant way?
// Making a const is not within the scope of my question!
static_cast<con st foo>(a).print() ;

return 0;
}
OK, let me take a stab again at articulating what I'm after. There are

two member functions in class foo that I care about: print() and print() const. If I had a const foo, I would be restricted to calling only print() const.
However, I don't have a const foo (it's the whole point of the problem;
please don't change it to const or you'll be answering a question different than what I asked, and one that I know the answer too!). Therefore, it is
*semantically* valid for me to call either print() or print() const. This
can be verified by removing the non-const print(). In that case, the
non-const foo object will correctly invoke print() cont.

My question is nothing more than trying to verify that, other than with a
cast to const foo, it is not *syntactically* possible for me to call print() const (even though it is *semantically* legal, as detailed above). In other words, I can't do this:

a.print() cost;

Hmmm, it just occurred to me that there may be a way with using a
pointer-to-member, but that would be somewhat ugly too. I think I may have exhausted the possibilities, but I'm merely throwing this out to those more experienced than I for confirmation...

Since neither version of your 'print()' function modifies
the object, there isn't really any reason to define a non-const
'print()' function at all.

Just remove the nonconst version, and the const version
will be invoked for const or nonconst objects.

-Mike

[cheeser]

> Just remove the nonconst version, and the const version

will be invoked for const or nonconst objects.

-Mike

That is correct, but it evades the whole point of the question! The question
may as well not even be asked if I go with something that doesn't address
the point of what I'm getting at!

I think by now I could probably safely conclude that the answer to my
question is that there's no way to do what I was asking about.

Thanks,
Dave

[Mike Wahler]

"cheeser" <ch**********@y ahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vo******** ****@news.super news.com...

Just remove the nonconst version, and the const version
will be invoked for const or nonconst objects.

-Mike
That is correct, but it evades the whole point of the question!

I still fail to see the point.
The question
may as well not even be asked if I go with something that doesn't address
the point of what I'm getting at!
Which is?

Are you asking if you can circumvent the design of C++?
Yes, in many cases you can. Your casting example is how
in this particular case.

I think by now I could probably safely conclude that the answer to my
question is that there's no way to do what I was asking about.

No, not without a cast. I think I have a much better question:
*Why* do you want to do this?

-Mike

[Jonathan Mcdougall]

> > Whether a const member function will be called or not depends

on the constness of the object. Why do you want that? Perhaps
we could find another way.
Here's the original code again:

<snipped again>
OK, let me take a stab again at articulating what I'm after.

That is not what I asked. Your question has been answered, it
is not possible to call a const member function from a non
const object if it is overloaded with a non-const function,
except with casting (which makes the object const, back to the
starting point).

My question was : why do you want that? Perhaps we could find
another way. Post some real code with your real design with
some real problems.
Jonathan

[cheeser]

Mike, Jonathan and Robert,

I merely wanted to verify that it is not possible (without undesirable casts
or other things of that ilk) to invoke a const method from a non-const
object if there is also a non-const method of the same name. I do not have
a specific application at hand; I just wanted confirmation that my
understnading that it can't be done is correct. You have provided that
confirmation. For this I offer my thanks.

A good evening to all,
Dave