Timeline for Is it a good idea to "#define me (*this)"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 26, 2014 at 0:45 | audit | First posts | |||
| Jul 26, 2014 at 0:45 | |||||
| Jul 15, 2014 at 1:18 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | +1 for explaining why, instead of just saying "No, it's a bad practice." | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 1:12 | comment | added | Loki Astari |
@Mehrdad: But only putting yes or no makes a very boring answer. Thus explanations are usually quite useful in explaining how the answer is reached (is encoraged by How to answer ). The conclusion is not to use because the OP has the wrong attitude to start with about using this and thus a discussion on that point is required to achieve a fully balanced conclusion.
|
|
| Jul 15, 2014 at 0:51 | comment | added | user541686 |
@LokiAstari: Nothing in the question even remotely hints at the OP wondering whether this-> "is necessary". In fact, the OP says he is using this-> in spite of the fact that it's not necessary. The question is about whether me. should be used instead of this->, which this answer doesn't actually answer.
|
|
| Jul 14, 2014 at 21:36 | comment | added | Loki Astari |
@Mehrdad: Because the OP explicitly says he is using me. instead of this->. Since there is no need for this-> there is no need for me. and thus no need for the macro.
|
|
| Jul 14, 2014 at 20:43 | comment | added | user541686 |
"In C++, you almost never have to write this" that's a totally unrelated convention to the question. Some people (like me) prefer to write this to explicitly make it clear that the variable is not local to the method. The question here is about whether the macro me should exist, not whether this is something that should be used.
|
|
| Jul 14, 2014 at 15:02 | history | edited | Jan Hudec | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fix typo
|
| Jul 14, 2014 at 12:25 | vote | accept | user3123061 | ||
| Jul 14, 2014 at 6:38 | history | answered | Jan Hudec | CC BY-SA 3.0 |