Code still compile when there is a mis-match in .h and .cpp

[yinglcs]

Hi,

In my .h file, I declare this:
class A{
public:
void f1 (const B* bPtr);
};

But In my .cpp, I do this:

void A::f1(B* bPtr) {
//....
}

My question is I miss 'const' in my implementation (.cpp), why the
code still compile?

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* yi*****@gmail.com:

Hi,

In my .h file, I declare this:
class A{
public:
void f1 (const B* bPtr);
};

But In my .cpp, I do this:

void A::f1(B* bPtr) {
//....
}

My question is I miss 'const' in my implementation (.cpp), why the
code still compile?

If you had the 'const' in a slightly different place, the compiler would
have been right.

As it is, perhaps there are options you can turn on to make it more
standard-conforming.

Or, use some other compiler.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Gavin Deane]

On 21 Feb, 17:19, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]:

Hi,

In my .h file, I declare this:
class A{
public:
void f1 (const B* bPtr);

};

But In my .cpp, I do this:

void A::f1(B* bPtr) {
//....

}

My question is I miss 'const' in my implementation (.cpp), why the
code still compile?

It shouldn't compile, for exactly the reason you suggest - unless, of
course, your class A *also* contains an overload of f1 declared as
void f1 (B* bPtr);
in the class.

If not, maybe something else in your code is causing your confusion.
You've posted a snippet that I can't directly compile so I don't know
what else is in your code. See posting guidelines at
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...t.html#faq-5.8

Try this complete program. Does it compile for you? What compiler are
you using?

class B {};

class A{
public:
void f1 (const B* bPtr);
};
void A::f1(B* bPtr) {}

int main() {}

Gavin Deane

[yinglcs]

On Feb 21, 11:25 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <[e-mail]:

* [e-mail]:

Hi,

In my .h file, I declare this:
class A{
public:
void f1 (const B* bPtr);
};

But In my .cpp, I do this:

void A::f1(B* bPtr) {
//....
}

My question is I miss 'const' in my implementation (.cpp), why the
code still compile?

If you had the 'const' in a slightly different place, the compiler would
have been right.

As it is, perhaps there are options you can turn on to make it more
standard-conforming.

Or, use some other compiler.

Thanks. Can you please tell me what is the place where the compiler
would have been right?

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* yi*****@gmail.com:

On Feb 21, 11:25 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <[e-mail]:

>* [e-mail]:

>>Hi,
In my .h file, I declare this:
class A{
public:
void f1 (const B* bPtr);
};
But In my .cpp, I do this:
void A::f1(B* bPtr) {
//....
}
My question is I miss 'const' in my implementation (.cpp), why the
code still compile?

If you had the 'const' in a slightly different place, the compiler would
have been right.

As it is, perhaps there are options you can turn on to make it more
standard-conforming.

Or, use some other compiler.

Thanks. Can you please tell me what is the place where the compiler
would have been right?

Why? I have the feeling that the original question was contrived. That
you simply /got the question wrong/.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?