Same name for a type and a method allowed?

[mczard]

I would like to have a method with a name same as some type in the
same namespace. Is it allowed by the C++ standard? I tried to figure
it out experimentally in gcc, but I get ambiguous results - for
example:

struct Point
{
int x;
int y;
};

struct Utils
{
Point Point()
{
return Point();
}

std::string Point()
{
return "";
}
};

The first method produces compile-time error, but the second method is
ok.

[suresh shenoy]

On Mar 2, 9:36*am, [e-mail] wrote:

I would like to have a method with a name same as some type in the
same namespace. Is it allowed by the C++ standard? I tried to figure
it out experimentally in gcc, but I get ambiguous results - for
example:

struct Point
{
* * * * int x;
* * * * int y;

};

struct Utils
{
* * * * Point Point()
* * * * {
* * * * * * * * return Point();
* * * * }

* * * * std::string Point()
* * * * {
* * * * * * * * return "";
* * * * }

};

The first method produces compile-time error, but the second method is
ok.

I believe you need to provide the scope for Point() method.

Suresh M Shenoy

[Juha Nieminen]

mc****@poczta.onet.pl wrote:

I would like to have a method with a name same as some type in the
same namespace. Is it allowed by the C++ standard? I tried to figure
it out experimentally in gcc, but I get ambiguous results - for
example:

struct Point
{
int x;
int y;
};

struct Utils
{
Point Point()
{
return Point();
}

Try to see if this works:

::Point Point()
{
return ::Point();
}

[mczard]

* Try to see if this works:

>
* * * * ::Point Point()
* * * * {
* * * * * * return ::Point();
* * * * }

Yes, this works with GCC. But is it compliant with ISO C++ for sure?

[Ian Collins]

mc****@poczta.onet.pl wrote:

> Try to see if this works:

::Point Point()
{
return ::Point();
}

Yes, this works with GCC. But is it compliant with ISO C++ for sure?

It's perfectly legal, but it's still a poor choice of naming convention.

--
Ian Collins.

[Jeff Schwab]

mc****@poczta.onet.pl wrote:

I would like to have a method with a name same as some type in the
same namespace. Is it allowed by the C++ standard?

Yes, but it's probably not a wonderful idea to exercise this particular
freedom. :)

struct point { };

void point() { }

int main() { point(); }

I tried to figure
it out experimentally in gcc, but I get ambiguous results - for
example:

struct Point
{
int x;
int y;
};

struct Utils
{
Point Point()
{
return Point();
}

std::string Point()
{
return "";
}
};

Huh? When client code calls Point(), which Point function is supposed
to be called?

If you need a function to create an object of a particular type (and
return it by value), a popular convention is to call the function
make_whatever. For example, see std::pair and std::make_pair.

[mczard]

It's perfectly legal, but it's still a poor choice of naming convention.

I have a special situation in a smart pointers library:

ref<Tsmart_ptr<T>::ref() const;

I think its simplicity is worth repeating the name.

[Jeff Schwab]

mc****@poczta.onet.pl wrote:

>It's perfectly legal, but it's still a poor choice of naming convention.

I have a special situation in a smart pointers library:

ref<Tsmart_ptr<T>::ref() const;

I think its simplicity is worth repeating the name.

The standard library has at least two work-arounds for this situation:

(1) Give the type a _t extension, such that a method called size()
returns an object of type size_t (typedef'd to size_type).

(2) Abbreviate the name of the method, but not the name of the type.
For example, stringstream's str() method returns an object of type string.

A third option would be to define your ref<Ttemplate in a separate
namespace. The smart_ptr can provide a typedef for it, so that you will
have:

smart_ptr<T>::ref_type smart_ptr<T>::ref() const;