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 8803195
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 14, 20262026-06-14T01:16:46+00:00 2026-06-14T01:16:46+00:00

I am assuming that the function already has a return value so that cannot

  • 0

I am assuming that the function already has a return value so that cannot be added.

What I came up with to solve this problem is to add extra pointer parameters which default to nullptr.

Before:

bool fun(double a, std::vector<std::randomexample> const & b)

After:

bool fun(double a, std::vector<std::randomexample> const & b, int* extraoutput = nullptr)

and use it like this

if(extraoutput)
  *extraoutput = whatever;

But that’s just what I came up with.
I would like to know if there is a better way to do this. Note that “whatever” is already in the function.

  • 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
    2026-06-14T01:16:47+00:00Added an answer on June 14, 2026 at 1:16 am

    If for some reason you need binary as well as (mostly) source compatibility[*]:

    Before:

    bool fun(double a, std::vector<std::randomexample> const & b) {
        // do stuff
        return true;
    }
    

    After:

    bool fun(double a, std::vector<std::randomexample> const & b, int* extraoutput) {
        // do stuff
        if(extraoutput)
            *extraoutput = whatever;
        return true;
    }
    bool fun(double a, std::vector<std::randomexample> const & b) {
        return fun(a, b, nullptr);
    }
    

    If you don’t want function overloading (for example if fun is part of an extern "C" interface), then you don’t actually have to call the new function fun. It could just as well be fun2.

    [*] As AndreyT points out, the source compatibility of your solution is limited. Calls to your old function will call your new function fine, but some other things that you might do with the old function will not work fine (since you have changed its type).

    There’s actually a source incompatibility in my code too. void(*foo)() = (void(*)()) fun; is allowed before the overload is added, but afterwards it’s ambiguous. If you want to support code that does that, then that’s a second reason not to want function overloading.

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

Sidebar

Related Questions

Assuming that I have this: enum { A = 0x2E, B = 0x23, C
Assuming that parsing the equation would not be a problem, how can I make
Assuming that one event has multiple handlers, if any of event handlers throw an
I could imagine this question has already been asked, but I actually could not
I've already found a workaround to this problem, but was just wondering if anyone
I'm new to this forum, and I have a question that has been bothering
I have a save function for my order entity that looks like this and
Apologies if this has been asked already. I tried to do an extensive search
Assuming that the larger a database gets, the longer it will take to SELECT
assuming that I know the PID of a process and want to do a

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.