C++ Function Alias

[Chris Meech]

This is probably the safest and most sensible way of accomplishing what the OP has requested. :)

Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]

[Albert Holguin]

:laugh: ...I still five'd the answer since it would probably work.

[Lost User]

Function pointer or wrap the big named func in a small one. Oh yeah, function pointers suck in C++. Awfull damn syntax.

============================== Nothing to say.

[Maximilien]

Me think that it is a bad idea. Your code will be peppered with function calls to short and/or abbreviated method names that will not reflect what it actually do; and the user (other developers) will need to look at the documentation to know what it should be doing.

Watched code never compiles.

[Lost User]

It will work, Windows uses it all over the place for the ASCII/Unicode versions of function names.

Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman

[Chuck OToole]

Stick an __inline in there and that ought to do it.

class cl
{
public: //or private, but with your example above,
// the external interface for a class should be public
__inline CString short_l(int i){ return FunctionWithADisturbingLongName(i);}
}

[Chuck OToole]

oh, I agree that this would be bad practice. Basically, you have a descriptive function name that makes the code reading for understanding far easier. But instead, you'll have code that uses short, cryptic names because it's easier to type (unless you're letting the wizard auto-complete function names) There's a reason that .NET Obfuscation routines create names like "N1", "N2", etc. It's because it makes the code harder to read and understand. Why do that on purpose to code you have to maintain.

[Albert Holguin]

I wasn't doubting it. :)

[Albert Holguin]

Agree too... unless the short names still provide sufficient information to make it readable, although if that's the case... why keep the long names at all (unless it's a library of sorts)...

[jschell]

I too agree with all of that.

[Lost User]

The word probably implied that you were not sure. :~

Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman

[Stefan_Lang]

There are several ways 1. #define works, if you choose a reasonably unique name, but it clutters the global namespace and therefore not a good idea. 2. declaring a second function that wraps the first adds code cluttering in your original class 3. a function pointer could work, but involves awkward syntax both for defining the pointer and calling the function 4. a function object would add quite a lot of code, but requires neither changing your original class nor dereferencing to invoke the function:

class shortname {
public:
shortname(class c1* p) : pclass(p) {}
CString operator()(int i) { return pclass->FunctionWithADisturbingLongName(i); }
private:
class c1* pclass;
};

void foo() {
c1 test;
shortname(&test);
CString result = shortname(1);
}