What is the advantage of having a free function (in anonymous namespace and accessible only in a single source file) and sending all variables as parameters as opposed to having a private class member function free of any parameters and accessing member variables directly?
header:
Class A { int myVariable; void DoSomething() { myVariable = 1; } };
source:
namespace { void DoSomething2(int &a) { a = 1; } } int A::SomeFunction() { DoSomething2(myVariable); // calling free function DoSomething(); // calling member function }
If you prefer making them members, then what if I have a case where I first call a function that is not accessing any member variables, but that function calls another function which is accessing a member. Should they both be member functions or free?
A function declared/defined within a class is a member function and a function declared/defined outside the scope of a class is a function.
The term free function in C++ simply refers to non-member functions. Every function that is not a member function is a free function.
A member function is declared in the class but defined outside the class and is called using the object of the class. A non-member function that is declared outside the class but called a normal function inside the main function.
One way to look at this is this: If a function manipulates an object's inner state, then that's a good indication that this function should probably be a member function. If a function uses an object without changing its inner state, then that's a good indication that this function probably should be a free function.
see this question: Effective C++ Item 23 Prefer non-member non-friend functions to member functions and also C++ Member Functions vs Free Functions
You should prefer free functions, in the extent that it promotes loose coupling.
Consider making it a member function only if it works on the guts of your class, and that you consider it really really tied to your class.
It is a point of the book 101 C++ coding standards, which states to prefer free function and static function over member functions.
Altough this may be considered opinion based, it allows to keep class little, and to seperate concerns.
This answer states: "the reason for this rule is that by using member functions you may rely too much on the internals of a class by accident."
One advantage of a non-member function in a source file is similar to the benefits of the Pimpl idiom: clients using your headers do not have to recompile if you change your implementation.
// widget.h class Widget { public: void meh(); private: int bla_; }; // widget.cpp namespace { void helper(Widget* w) // clients will never know about this { /* yadayada */ } } void widget::meh() { helper(this); }
Of course, when written like this, helper()
can only use the public interface of Widget
, so you gain little. You can put a friend
declaration for helper()
inside Widget
but at some point you better switch to a full-blown Pimpl solution.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With