Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 872191
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 15, 20262026-05-15T10:44:50+00:00 2026-05-15T10:44:50+00:00

C++ requires all types to be defined before they can be used, which makes

  • 0

C++ requires all types to be defined before they can be used, which makes it important to include header files in the right order. Fine. But what about my situation:

Bunny.h:

   class Bunny
   {
       ...
   private:
       Reference<Bunny> parent;
   }

The compiler complains, because technically Bunny has not been completely defined at the point where I use it in its own class definition. because I did something stupid (unrelated).

Apart from re-writing my template class Reference so it takes a pointer type (in which case I can use the forward declaration of Bunny), I don’t know how to solve this.

Any suggestions?

EDIT: My Reference class (XObject is a base class for data mode objects):

template <class T = XObject> class Reference
{
public:
    Reference() : m_ptr (NULL) {}
    Reference(T* p)
    {
        m_ptr = p;
        if (p != NULL) ((XObject*)p)->ref();
    }
    ~Reference()
    {
        if (m_ptr)
        {
            ((XObject*)m_ptr)->deref();
        }
    }

    // ... assignment, comparison, etc.

private:
    T* m_ptr;
}; 

EDIT: This works fine, the problem was something else. Thanks so much for your help!

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-15T10:44:51+00:00Added an answer on May 15, 2026 at 10:44 am

    The answer to your question depends on what Reference<> looks like. If it has an instance variable of type Bunny in it then of course it won’t work (how would it, you have a recursive definition that never ends). If it has only references and pointers in it then it should work fine. The Bunny type in the template instantiation would not interfere with this.

    Edit (post reference<> code edit):

    I can’t seem to recreate your problem. I’ve reimplemented code like what you’re doing but it compiles fine for me:

    struct base {
      void fun() {}
    };
    template < typename T >
    struct temp
    {
      T * t;
    
      void f() { ((base*)t)->fun(); }
    };
    
    struct test
    {
      temp<test> t;
    
    };
    
    int main()
    {
      test t;
      t.t.f();
    }
    

    It’s obviously invalid code in that you’re going to get undefined results but it does compile. Mainly the issue here is the reinterpret cast from type test* to type base*. If test really did inherit from base then the cast wouldn’t even be necessary. Code like this will not function as expected but it should compile just fine. One recommendation I’d have is to lose all the c-style casts. That won’t solve the problem you’re having though, whatever it is…it’s got to be somewhere in the code you’re not pasting.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.