While reading the a C++1z paper called Abominable functions I've found the following code:
class rectangle {
public:
using int_property = int() const; // common signature for several methods
int_property top;
int_property left;
int_property bottom;
int_property right;
int_property width;
int_property height;
// Remaining details elided
};
I've never seen code like that before (the paper itself states that it is very strange to find code like that) so I wanted to give a try to this approach and give a value to those int_property
:
class rectangle {
int f() const { return 0; }
public:
using int_property = int() const; // common signature for several methods
int_property top = f; // <--- error!
int_property left;
int_property bottom;
int_property right;
int_property width;
int_property height;
// Remaining details elided
};
In my modification above, the compiler complaints about the f
saying that (only '= 0' is allowed) before ';' token
; my other attempts were:
class rectangle {
int f() const { return 0; }
public:
using int_property = int() const; // common signature for several methods
// invalid initializer for member function 'int rectangle::top() const'
int_property top{f};
int_property left{&f};
// invalid pure specifier (only '= 0' is allowed) before ';' token
int_property bottom = f;
int_property right = &f;
int_property width;
int_property height;
// class 'rectangle' does not have any field named 'width'
// class 'rectangle' does not have any field named 'height'
rectangle() : width{f}, height{&rectangle::f} {}
};
So the question is:
int_property
"fields" point to a function?int_property
"fields"?int() const
is a function type with a cv-qualifier. The declaration int_property top;
declares a function, not a variable. This declaration has just the same effect as int top() const;
.
As with other member functions, you define them by providing a function definition.
int rectangle::top() const {
return 0;
}