What void foo() is really? - a Method? OR a Function?

[_uj]

However, that does not really answer thomus07's question: "what factor separates a method and a function"?

The decisive factor is how the function is used. If it defines object behaviour it's a method (according to the OO terminology).

In my view in C++ it's questionable whether static functions and private function should be called methods. In Java they are but that's probably only because every function is called a method there.

[_uj]

Add this choise to the poll,

- Method if it defines object behaviour, otherwise function.

[laserlight]

The decisive factor is how the function is used. If it defines object behaviour it's a method (according to the OO terminology).

What does "defines object behaviour" really mean?

In Java they are but that's probably only because every function is called a method there.

Yes, the term would be language specific in that context.

[thomus07]

Add this choise to the poll,

- Method if it defines object behaviour, otherwise function.

Thanks _uj. All your answers are very informative.
The poll is not a judgment of What void foo() - is a Method? or Function?
It is what we are discussing.

The poll is about - How do you call / refer to void foo() in all our C++ programming career. In the sense some people call it as method and some as function.

Because modern languages like C#, refers as "Method". Even in this perspective static methods won't define object's behavior. Still C# calls everything as Method.

So I think it is more towards - A LANGUAGE PERSPECTIVE than the actual concept.

[laserlight]

The poll is about - How do you call / refer to void foo() in all our C++ programming career. In the sense some people call it as method and some as function.

Because modern languages like C#, refers as "Method". Even in this perspective static methods won't define object's behavior. Still C# calls everything as Method.

So I think it is more towards - A LANGUAGE PERSPECTIVE than the actual concept.

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

Therefore, I would suggest that you call foo a "function", not a "method", in C++. However, if you are discussing such constructs with a group of programmers more familiar or comfortable with the term "method", by all means use "method".

[thomus07]

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

Therefore, I would suggest that you call foo a "function", not a "method", in C++. However, if you are discussing such constructs with a group of programmers more familiar or comfortable with the term "method", by all means use "method".

Thanks Laserlight.
This is very good practical suggestion even though it's fool proof.

[TheCPUWizard]

If we consider that "function" in most programming languages indicates a block of callable code [although some do restrict it to those cases that return a value].....Then we consider "method" to mean "behaviour".

We begin to see where Stroustrup's selectionof virtual functions to be called methods makes alot of sense.

static members and non-virtual instance members have a definite 1:1 mapping to a specific block of code. This code can be called a "function" if you accept my first paragraph.

virtual members on the other hand, truely do specify a behaviour, which can be abstract (pure), have a single implementation (no-overrides) or multiple implementations (overrides in different derived classses).

Therefore you can NOT say "a virtual member is a function" (note the emphasis on the singular).

[thomus07]

............................
static members and non-virtual instance members have a definite 1:1 mapping to a specific block of code. This code can be called a "function" if you accept my first paragraph.
.................................

Thanks cpuwizard.
Your analysis are very excellent.
You could say some valid points to support non-virtual members as functions.

I think most languages refer either of the way. And it is advised to adopt consistently for that language.
This may be because this couldn't create any side effect.

A deep analysis could say that, in some contexts this generalization is not suitable.
To refer correct name in appropriate context will make correct sense undoubtedly. Also correct reference gives a better understanding of the language.
If we don't want if we can forget this may be .

[jefranki]

No matter how many times I've heard these arguments, I've come to the conclusion that a function vs. a method is really is only a symantac difference. Heck, if you ported it to Pascal it would be a Procedure. My advice, roll with whatever term the language calls it (or whatever your instructor calls it, for the duration you are in his/her class).

just for kicks:

{Pascal version of foo, not case sensitive}
Procedure foo;
begin
end;

{variation with parameters}
Procedure foo2(someValue: Integer);
begin
	someValue:=someValue+1;
end;

{variation as a Function}
Function foo3(someValue: Integer): Integer;
begin
	foo3:=someValue*3;
end;