Subclassing where parent class has `[]` operator

[J.Hilk]

return QList<Something>::operator[](index)

[JonB]

@J-Hilk
Hmph, yes, I forget I can do that.
Do you really think QList<Something>::operator[](index) is "nicer" than (*this)[someIndex] though? :) I find it longer to type and read and (maybe) understand.

[J.Hilk]

@JonB said in Subclassing where parent class has `[]` operator:

(*this)[someIndex]

I would assume this is a recursive call, right? why should this default to the base class implementation?

[JonB]

@J-Hilk said in Subclassing where parent class has `[]` operator:

recursive call, right

You misunderstand. I never said I am overriding the (virtual) [] operator in my subclasses. I am not. I am simply trying to invoke the [] operator in some method within the subclass:

SomethingList::someMethod()
{
    auto abc = count();    // works, as would this->count()
    auto def = at(10);    // works, as world this->at(10)
    auto ghi = [10];    // does not work
    auto jkl = this->[10];    // does not work
    auto mno = (*this)[10];    // works, and is what I currently use

    // next two are yours, I have not tested whether work
    // but personally I find them uglier/just as ugly as  (*this)[10] ?
    auto pqr = QList<Something>::operator[](10);
    auto stu = SomethingList::operator[](10);
}

[J.Hilk]

Oh I see!

Well, I personally would prefere:

auto pqr = operator[](index);

over

auto mno = (*this)[index];

[JonB]

@J-Hilk
Fair enough. In your last example I see we could drop the QList<Something>:: or SomethingList:: prefix and just write plain operator[](index), that is an improvement for me.

I'm not sure whether I agree with your preference, but maybe you are "correcter" ;-) (I like seeing [index] somewhere in my expression!) If you don't mind, I should like to see whether anyone else would care to comment/express a preference here, before I mark yours as correct answer. If everyone else says yours is "the way to write it in C++" I will change over....

[JonB]

@J-Hilk
UPDATE:
I chanced having a look in online Qt source code of QStringList in the hope of finding where they might try to call []. At https://codebrowser.dev/qt5/qtbase/src/corelib/text/qstringlist.cpp.html#539 I find

(*that)[i].replace(before, after, cs);

I realise this code is with a that (for another QStringList) rather than with a this, but note that it uses the (*something)[i] syntax. So I am not alone.....

[J.Hilk]

@JonB personally feels to c like for my taste :D

[JonB]

@J-Hilk
...which is prolly exactly why it's more to my taste... ;-)

As in: If it's C you can just look at it and tell just what it does. If it's C++ you can look at it, and if you understand it at all and think you know what it does, it probably does something else/much more....

[SimonSchroeder]

Well, first of all (user-defined) operators in C++ are just functions. Hence, it means you can call them using the function syntax (like mentioned as operator[](someIndex)). To understand why you cannot just write [someIndex] we need to look at the history of C++; or rather C. We get the index operator syntax from plain arrays and pointers. These require the array or pointer to be explicitly written before the operator: p[i] or array[i]. (To be more precise: These are the same as i[p] and i[array] because officially in C these are equivalent to p+i=i+p and array+i=i+array. However, this weird syntax does not work for operator[] overloading and doesn't help to make my point.) In the same way you need to write the object on which to call the overloaded operator[] in front of the index access. If you could use implicit this, the same would need to apply e.g. for the binary operator+ and the like. What about operator=? I personally also think that just [someIndex] is not really readable. It doesn't show directly that you want to use an index operator. I prefer that you must write (*this)[someIndex] explicitly. In most places I would use it like this. Only when I want to make plain that I want to forward to operator[] (as was initially asked) I would make the forwarding aspect clear by writing operator[](someIndex).

Furthermore, now it is too late to introduce the short-hand syntax (implicit this) into C++. [] without an object preceeding it is already reserved for introducing lambdas. I would expect that the compiler error for return [someIndex]; would say something along the lines that the body for the lambda function is missing. (return [someIndex]{}; would return a lambda that does nothing, but captures someIndex by value. Function arguments () are optional for lambdas if they are empty.)

Sometimes when I need to use some operators (not necessarily the index operator) several times inside a member function (and I'm annoyed at writing (*this) over and over again) I would write auto &self = *this;. Then, it is much nicer to write return self[someIndex];. (The name self is derived from other OO languages that use a reference self to the object instead of a pointer this.)