Access other members within same nested class?

It's hard to give a precise title but here is the question in detail: I have a class, something like this:

Code:

---

class classA{
  public:
    void fnA();
    ...
};

---

and another class that contains objects of classA:

Code:

---

class classB{
  public:
    classA A1;
    classA A2;
    classA A3;
    vector<classA*> vA;
    ...
};
classB B1;

---

Now is it possible to access B1.vA from B1.A1.fnA() through some kind of pointer chain like this->parent->vA ? If so, how? Thanks!

Unless you want us to fill in the "..." with code, classA has no idea it is being stored in a vector, list, map, etc. So the answer to your question is no.

Also, to make it easy for others, here is a real, compilable version of the code, without the "..." and with the proper includes.

Code:

---

#include <vector>

class classA
{
    public:
      void fnA() {}
};

class classB
{
  public:
    classA A1;
    std::vector<classA*> vA;
};

int main()
{
  classB B1;
  B1.A1.fnA();
}

---

Regards,

Paul McKenzie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acppdummy

It's hard to give a precise title but here is the question in detail: I have a class, something like this:

---

Maybe you should try describing your actual problem, rather than such a theoretical case. Whenever a design is such that an object needs to know about the context in which it is stored, I hear bells ringing. Maybe you should rethink your design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acppdummy

Now is it possible to access B1.vA from B1.A1.fnA() through some kind of pointer chain like this->parent->vA ? If so, how? Thanks!

---

classA needs to have a pointer to an instance of classB in order to do this. That's it.

Thank you for the quick reply! Yes I will have to redo the design.

the C++ answer: No.
there is only a "parent"/"child" relationship with the direct class inheritance.

the C++ language does not have any built in provisions at all for establishing a relationship of members to the class they are a member of. In the above example, there is no relationship between ClassB and ClassA or ClassB and the vA vector.

That is to say, the compiler doesn't provide such a relationship mechanism, you can of course provide it for yourself, but that means extra members and you'll need to initialise those members properly.


The non C++ answer:
if you don't care about portablity to another compiler, or even another version of the same brand of compiler and even changes in compiler settings (changing any of these will need code revision).
Then you can do this by using the direct memory layout. If you know by some means in your code that the vA must be a part of a ClassB, then you can do some pointer math to calculate the ClassB instance pointer from the vA instance pointer.
P.S. Whoever will need to maintain this code will hate you for this.

Thank you! I have changed the vector to a static member of classA instead.

making a vector static would allow access, but it changes the nature of things.
by making it static, there is only 1 vector regardless of how many objects you make. without static, there is a vector in each individual instance.

static may be just what you wanted/needed, but it is not the same as the question in the OP.

Yes in my particular situation I need a global list of certain objects of classA so a static member just fits the need. Thanks!