• 0

[C++] Accessing private member variables


Question

Hi, I'm new to C++ and OOP. I've been having a problem with a concept.

class samp
{
	int i;
public:
	samp(int n)
	{
		i = n;
	}
	int func(samp ob)
	{
		return ob.i;
	}
};

Now, i is a private member of the class samp. So, how can the parameter ob access i directly? I know func(ob) is a member function of the class. But I thought private members can only be accessed with a this pointer.

Can anyone explain why the above code works?

10 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
  On 14/09/2011 at 16:08, kInG aLeXo said:

You need the this pointer only if the parameter name is same as a variable name in the class (public or private, because it does shadow the class variable in that case).Otherwise, this is not needed, and is implicitly "included".

I understand that. But, my real question was, how can "ob", which is a parameter of the fuctions func(), directly access ob.i? Doesn't that break the whole idea of having private variables?

  • 0
  On 14/09/2011 at 16:13, Solid Knight said:

Because i isn't private.

This is C++ not Java, i is private by default (he didn't include it in the public, so its by default implicitly private).

  On 14/09/2011 at 16:13, Gigi Buffon said:

I understand that. But, my real question was, how can "ob", which is a parameter of the fuctions func(), directly access ob.i? Doesn't that break the whole idea of having private variables?

I had this very exact mistake in an exam..

Turns out, if the calling class is of the same type, it can actually access the private variables, and even the private constructors and functions of another instance of the same class.(ie: this code works only because func is member of samp class, which is same class of ob parameter, if func was member of another class it won't work).

  • 0

If you know what friend is, you can think of a class being a friend of itself. This allows it to access private members of another object of the same class.

I'm sure there are several reasons for this. The main one I find is that when writing copy constructors you need to access private variables that you might not otherwise want to be exposed.

  • 0
  On 14/09/2011 at 16:16, kInG aLeXo said:

Turns out, if the calling class is of the same type, it can actually access the private variables, and even the private constructors and functions of another instance of the same class.(ie: this code works only because func is member of samp class, which is same class of ob parameter, if func was member of another class it won't work).

Thanks for explaining. I was thinking the same, but couldn't find any reference for it.

  • 0
  On 14/09/2011 at 16:23, Lant said:

If you know what friend is, you can think of a class being a friend of itself. This allows it to access private members of another object of the same class.

I'm sure there are several reasons for this. The main one I find is that when writing copy constructors you need to access private variables that you might not otherwise want to be exposed.

I only know about friend functions, not friend classes. So I can't understand how a class can be a friend of itself. Maybe you meant the member functions of a class are friends of that class? If that's the case, then everything makes sense.

Edit: Just read up on friend classes. Yes, your post makes plenty of sense now. Thank you.

  • 0
  On 14/09/2011 at 16:26, Gigi Buffon said:

Thanks for explaining. I was thinking the same, but couldn't find any reference for it.

In many cases just trust the compiler, even if you find in some reference a different thing.If you can, use GCC instead of Visual Studio (for Windows I recommend Code::Block with MingW), its much better compliant to the C++ standards.

  • 0

" the private keyword specifies that those members are accessible only from member functions and friends of the class. This applies to all members declared up to the next access specifier or the end of the class." private (C++)

It turns out encapsulation is done at the class level, not at the object level. An object of type Foo can access the private members of another object of type Foo and that doesn't break encapsulation because both objects are of the same type. In other words, they know how the other is laid out since it's of the same type. So they're only using information already available to them. Encapsulation is broken when a type Y makes an assumption about type X's implementation.

  • 0
  On 14/09/2011 at 16:34, kInG aLeXo said:

If you can, use GCC instead of Visual Studio (for Windows I recommend Code::Block with MingW), its much better compliant to the C++ standards.

What does this have to do with the OP?

This is just an opinion which imo is plain rubbish. Compliant to what standard? C++11? There are no compilers fully compliant to that.

Imo Visual C++ has a superior debugger than GCC and Visual studio is a better IDE than Code::Blocks.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The Nokia Lumias? Or the third-party HTC One8's? I had HTC's hardware cuz it was slick and reliable... but, yeah, the software left me wanting more and I just couldn't allocate personal time to develop all of the software I would have wanted to see (overworked in other capacities @ MSFT at the time, heh).
    • Microsoft's mobile strategy had great future vision and UX research, but mediocre engineering and inadequate support (third-party and internal business alike). The death knell for WinMo was Google's (mostly YouTube's) incessant API blocking and purposeful release of buggy WinMo builds to force consumers to stay away -- and this was conducted via sabotage of whatever partnerships they were supposed to play nice in. I still yearn for that UI on a modern smartphone...
    • Linux has always been an option but never adopted by the masses despite being free. The reasons are limited usability and features. Despite everything we all complaint about with MS , the overall experience for the general public is much better than what Linux can deliver.
    • If nothing works automatically for you, I'd say pick a better/different distro. Granted, it's trickier with laptops because they use all kinds of weird hardware, but still. I actually just did a fresh Arch Linux install on my netbook, and given that Arch is certainly not an "automagical" distro, I had to do very little manual tweaking, everything but the audio worked out of the box (including plasma and Wayland) and the audio was simply an issue of installing an additional firmware package that wasn't included in the default selection. Which is equivalent of installing additional drivers in Windows. Surely a more user-oriented distro would be even less troublesome (but granted, I haven't used/tested anything outside of Arch for quite some time). And let's not forget that a fair bit of issues that get blamed on Linux (though it also applies to Windows issues) are actually caused by hardware vendors not giving a damn.
    • The reason Linux will never succeed for consumers is simple. There are 800 distro’s and 400 active versions. As a consumer, “I want Linux” - great, which one? No single App Store, and websites will say “use this app, oh, sorry, doesn’t work on yours”. No single place for support, community help is reduced, so many apps don’t work or have compatibility problems. Drivers from manufacturers have issues. The gaming industry isn’t behind it. if you have an old pc, then sure, try Linux, you might love it. But the arguments above don’t stack up.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      POR2GAL4EVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      Orpheus13 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      Orpheus13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Orpheus13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      serfegyed earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      563
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      256
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      163
    4. 4
      +FloatingFatMan
      157
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      109
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!