struct pong_ball
{
SDL_Rect b_rect;
vector2f position;
vector2f direction;
float speed;
};
pong_ball g_ball;
Struct declaration issues
Author
I'm getting errors when I create an instance of my struct.
Here's the code:
And the errors I'm getting are:
36 C:\Documents and Settings\FINALPONG\main.cpp no matching function for call to `pong_ball::pong_ball()'
note C:\Documents and Settings\FINALPONG\main.cpp:25 candidates are: pong_ball::pong_ball(const pong_ball&)
I just don't get it, it's not a class, so why is it looking for a constructor?
It is probably your vector2f. It needs to be constructed, but you don't have an appropriate constructor.
A struct and a class are the same thing except that structs are public by default and classes are private.
Probably vector2f doesn't have a default constructor and pong_ball needs to construct them explicitely.
Probably vector2f doesn't have a default constructor and pong_ball needs to construct them explicitely.
Author
Here's vector2f.h. chad_420 gave it to me because I was having trouble before:
#include <cmath>struct vector2f{ float x,y; vector2f(float x_, float y_) : x(x_), y(y_) {} void normalize() { if(x != 0 && y != 0) { float len = sqrt(x*x + y*y); x /= len; y /= len; } } vector2f vabs() { vector2f temp(0,0); temp.x = abs(x); temp.y = abs(y); return temp; } //Operator Overloads... //+= and -= vector2f operator+=(vector2f const& other) { return vector2f(x + other.x,y + other.y); } vector2f operator-=(vector2f const& other) { return vector2f(x - other.x,y - other.y); } // vector2f, int, float subtraction vector2f operator-(vector2f const& other) { return vector2f(x - other.x, y - other.y); } vector2f operator-(int const& other) { return vector2f(x - other, y - other); } vector2f operator-(float const& other) { return vector2f(x - other, y - other); } // vector2f, int, float addition vector2f operator+(vector2f const& other) { return vector2f(x + other.x, y + other.y); } vector2f operator+(int const& other) { return vector2f(x + other, y + other); } vector2f operator+(float const& other) { return vector2f(x + other, y + other); } // vector2f, int, float multiplication vector2f operator*(vector2f const& other) { return vector2f(x * other.x, y * other.y); } vector2f operator*(int const& other) { return vector2f(x * other, y * other); } vector2f operator*(float const& other) { return vector2f(x * other, y * other); } // vector2f, int, float division vector2f operator/(vector2f const& other) { return vector2f(x / other.x, y / other.y); } vector2f operator/(int const& other) { return vector2f(x / other, y / other); } vector2f operator/(float const& other) { return vector2f(x / other, y / other); } //logical operator overloads... int,float and vector for > < but not == // int operator==(vector2f const& other) { if(abs(x - other.x) < 1 && abs(y - other.y) < 1) return 1; else return 0; } //Greater than int operator>(vector2f const& other) { if(x >= other.x && y >= other.y) return 1; else return 0; } int operator>(int const& other) { if(x >= other && y >= other) return 1; else return 0; } int operator>(float const& other) { if(x > other && y > other) return 1; else return 0; } //Less than int operator<(vector2f const& other) { if(x < other.x && y < other.y) return 1; else return 0; } int operator<(int const& other) { if(x < other && y < other) return 1; else return 0; } int operator<(float const& other) { if(x < other && y < other) return 1; else return 0; } };
Hi,
Put in another constructor for vector2f and a set function:-
Ohterwise you need to make those vector2f pointers and allocate memory at run time. With the vector2f you have right now this is how it will probably work
With respect to the exact error you are getting, do you have a constructor for pong_ball as well which goes like pong_ball(const pong_ball &). In my opinion its best to always create a constructor which accepts no value and set member variables to default in all cases. For eg:-
Put in another constructor for vector2f and a set function:-
vector2f::vector2f(){ x = 0; y = 0;}void vector2f::set(float inX, float inY){ x = inX; y = inY;}Ohterwise you need to make those vector2f pointers and allocate memory at run time. With the vector2f you have right now this is how it will probably work
struct pong_ball{ SDL_Rect b_rect; vector2f *position; vector2f *direction; float speed; };pong_ball b;b.position = new vector2f(10, 20); // example datab.direction = new vector2f(1, 1); // example datab.speed = 0.4f; // example dataWith respect to the exact error you are getting, do you have a constructor for pong_ball as well which goes like pong_ball(const pong_ball &). In my opinion its best to always create a constructor which accepts no value and set member variables to default in all cases. For eg:-
struct pong_ball{ pong_ball() { position.set(0, 0); direction.set(0, 0); speed = 0; b_rect.width = b.rect.height = b_rect.x = b_rect.y = 0; } SDL_Rect b_rect; vector2f position; vector2f direction; float speed; };
Author
Thanks for your help, but there's still a problem.
Here's my code now:
But now I get
39 C:\Documents and Settings\FINALPONG\main.cpp expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before '.' token
39 C:\Documents and SettingsFINALPONG\main.cpp expected `,' or `;' before '.' token
For each of the g_ball. lines. Any ideas?
Here's my code now:
struct pong_ball{ SDL_Rect b_rect; vector2f *position; vector2f *direction; float speed; };pong_ball g_ball;g_ball.position=new vector2f(25, 50);g_ball.direction=new vector2f(1.0, 1.0);g_ball.speed=0.5f;But now I get
39 C:\Documents and Settings\FINALPONG\main.cpp expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before '.' token
39 C:\Documents and SettingsFINALPONG\main.cpp expected `,' or `;' before '.' token
For each of the g_ball. lines. Any ideas?
The constructore should be in the struct:
struct pong_ball{ SDL_Rect b_rect; vector2f *position; vector2f *direction; float speed; pong_ball() { position=new vector2f(25, 50); direction=new vector2f(1.0, 1.0); speed=0.5f; }};
Sorry, but I don't agree with some of the advice you've been given. The original answering posters were correct with their assessments - the changes in response to those we're all you needed to make.
The problem came with the constructor. A struct and a class are virtually the same thing, as noted by AnonMike (although there is another difference you don't need to know about yet). Every class / struct has a constructor - if you don't specify one, a default constructor will be provided for that class, but with no parameters.
(Loosely) When a function is called, the function is matched to those functions with the same name and same parameter sets. With your original pong_ball code you have provided no user-defined constructor, so a default one is provided. In the process of this constructor running, it tries to create instances of each member - including the two vector2f members. Because this is a default constructor, it tries to default construct (that is, runs a parameter-free constructor) for each of these 2 instances.
Unfortunately, your vector2f code has no parameter-free constructor - it only has vector2f(float x_, float y_). Therefore there is no matching function for the constructor to call. Therefore the constructor of pong_ball fails.
This is what CRACK123 is getting at. You need to either provide a user-written constructor for pong_ball that meets the required criteria, or provide a parameter-free constructor in vector2f.
There is absolutely no need to change vector2f to vector2f* - and given the later question on . versus -> all you've done is complicated the issue. In addition, if you're using pointer members, there are several other things you need to think about that have not been addressed. Go back to the original code (example below).
Why are you bringing up the copy constructor? In addition, I disagree with always providing a parameter-free constructor and setting everything to default. Not everything has a default. Assuming in this particular code that vector2f is a point you're assuming that that (0,0) is the default starting position for the ball. How is that sensible? Assuming direction is a orientation vector, default setting it to (0,0) also makes no sense. This is a prime example of why assuming default values are a bad idea.
So, finally, some suggested code for ukdeveloper:
Of course, this means you now need a copy constructor in the vector2f class (as I didn't spot one on quick look through) - so add, after the normal constructor:
And hopefully Bob's your uncle's second cousin.
Jim.
Edit: And neither CRACK123 or cyberfox deal with deletion of the new'ed element. This is important if you're going to use pointer members.
The problem came with the constructor. A struct and a class are virtually the same thing, as noted by AnonMike (although there is another difference you don't need to know about yet). Every class / struct has a constructor - if you don't specify one, a default constructor will be provided for that class, but with no parameters.
(Loosely) When a function is called, the function is matched to those functions with the same name and same parameter sets. With your original pong_ball code you have provided no user-defined constructor, so a default one is provided. In the process of this constructor running, it tries to create instances of each member - including the two vector2f members. Because this is a default constructor, it tries to default construct (that is, runs a parameter-free constructor) for each of these 2 instances.
Unfortunately, your vector2f code has no parameter-free constructor - it only has vector2f(float x_, float y_). Therefore there is no matching function for the constructor to call. Therefore the constructor of pong_ball fails.
This is what CRACK123 is getting at. You need to either provide a user-written constructor for pong_ball that meets the required criteria, or provide a parameter-free constructor in vector2f.
Quote:
Ohterwise you need to make those vector2f pointers and allocate memory at run time. With the vector2f you have right now this is how it will probably work
There is absolutely no need to change vector2f to vector2f* - and given the later question on . versus -> all you've done is complicated the issue. In addition, if you're using pointer members, there are several other things you need to think about that have not been addressed. Go back to the original code (example below).
Quote:
With respect to the exact error you are getting, do you have a constructor for pong_ball as well which goes like pong_ball(const pong_ball &). In my opinion its best to always create a constructor which accepts no value and set member variables to default in all cases.
Why are you bringing up the copy constructor? In addition, I disagree with always providing a parameter-free constructor and setting everything to default. Not everything has a default. Assuming in this particular code that vector2f is a point you're assuming that that (0,0) is the default starting position for the ball. How is that sensible? Assuming direction is a orientation vector, default setting it to (0,0) also makes no sense. This is a prime example of why assuming default values are a bad idea.
So, finally, some suggested code for ukdeveloper:
struct pong_ball{// Here is the provided constructor// Note that I know nothing about SDL_Rect's initialisation requirements - adjust to fitpong_ball(const vector2f& pos, const vector2f& dir, float spd) : position(pos), direction(dir), speed(spd) {} SDL_Rect b_rect; vector2f position; vector2f direction; float speed; };// Note start values should be changed to whatever's appropriatepong_ball g_ball(vector2(10.0f,10.0f), vector2(1.0f,0.0f), 1.0f);Of course, this means you now need a copy constructor in the vector2f class (as I didn't spot one on quick look through) - so add, after the normal constructor:
vector2f(const vector2f& vec) : x(vex.x), y(vec.y) {}And hopefully Bob's your uncle's second cousin.
Jim.
Edit: And neither CRACK123 or cyberfox deal with deletion of the new'ed element. This is important if you're going to use pointer members.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
