Is there any rule on adding class scope in its member function?

[fl]

Hi,

I notice that the return value 'ret_lines' definition has no scope 'TextQuery'
as the internal variable 'has_val'. Is there any rule on such usage?


Thanks,


..........
// returns lines not in its operand's result set
set<TextQuery::line_no>
NotQuery::eval(const TextQuery& file) const
{
// virtual call through the Query handle to eval
set<TextQuery::line_no> has_val = query.eval(file);

set<line_no> ret_lines;

// for each line in the input file, check whether that line is in has_val
// if not, add that line number to ret_lines
for (TextQuery::line_no n = 0; n != file.size(); ++n)
if (has_val.find(n) == has_val.end())
ret_lines.insert(n);
return ret_lines;
}

[Öö Tiib]

On Saturday, 31 October 2015 17:09:20 UTC+2, fl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I notice that the return value 'ret_lines' definition has no scope 'TextQuery'
> as the internal variable 'has_val'. Is there any rule on such usage?
>
>
> Thanks,

You posted a slice of code that does not compile with C++ compiler
and what it means depends on code that you did not post.
We do not know what type names 'line_no' and 'TextQuery::line_no'
represent; seems these are aliases to some integer type.

[Paavo Helde]

fl <rxj...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:63166e16-eae7-4e70...@googlegroups.com:

> Hi,
>
> I notice that the return value 'ret_lines' definition has no scope
> 'TextQuery' as the internal variable 'has_val'. Is there any rule on
> such usage?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> ..........
> // returns lines not in its operand's result set
> set<TextQuery::line_no>
> NotQuery::eval(const TextQuery& file) const
> {
> // virtual call through the Query handle to eval
> set<TextQuery::line_no> has_val = query.eval(file);
>
> set<line_no> ret_lines;

As far as we know from this excerpt, the names TextQuery::line_no and
line_no may refer to different types, or they may not. For example, if
TextQuery is a class and NotQuery is inherited from TextQuery, they would
most probably refer to the same type.

A decent programming IDE would provide you with a 'go to definition'
feature which would help you to see (with some confidence) if they are
the same or not.

hth
Paavo

[fl]

On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 12:32:19 PM UTC-4, Paavo Helde wrote:
> fl <rx...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:63166e16-eae7-x0-...@googlegroups.com:

Thanks both of you. Both types have its respective typedef's. They are
different.