I have 2 sample codes below:
#include<iostream>
#include<vector>
using namespace std;
class emp{
int emp_count;
public:
emp(){emp_count=2;}
int get_employee_count() const {return emp_count;}
};
int main(){
const emp e1;
cout<<e1.get_employee_count();
return 0;
}
Above code works fine, however, below code gives an error for trying to change a read-only value:
#include<iostream>
#include<vector>
using namespace std;
class emp{
const int emp_count;
public:
emp(){emp_count=2;}
int get_employee_count() const {return emp_count;}
};
int main(){
emp e1;
cout<<e1.get_employee_count();
return 0;
}
A const class object doesn't let me change the value of the data member, but based on the above example, how is a const class object different from a const data member as I am able to assign the value in the constructor body in the 1st code, while the 2nd code restricts me to do the same?
A const class object doesn't allow the value of any of its data members to be modified outside the constructor. For example:
#include<iostream>
#include<vector>
class emp {
public:
int emp_count; // Made public for demonstration
emp() { emp_count = 2; }
int get_employee_count() const { return emp_count; }
};
int main()
{
const emp e1;
emp e2;
e1.emp_count = 10; // Compiler error
std::cout << e1.get_employee_count();
return 0;
}
But emp_count can still be modified by the constructor:
emp()
{
emp_count = 2; // This is assignment, not initialization
}
A const data member is a data member that cannot be modified after initialization, neither inside the class nor outside the class.
To initialize a data member, just assign a value to it as such:
class emp
{
const int emp_count = 2;
public:
Or initialize it using the constructor as such:
class emp
{
const int emp_count;
public:
emp() : emp_count(2) { } // Initialization of emp_count
int get_employee_count() const { return emp_count; }
};
Also, consider not using the following line in your code:
using namespace std;
..as it's considered as bad practice.
emp_count=2; is not initialization, it is an assignment. Even if it happens in a constructor. And one cannot assign to const objects.
Use the initializer list to initialize const members:
emp(): emp_count(2) {}
Even better is to use in-class initialization for constants:
class emp{
int emp_count=2;
public:
int get_employee_count() const {return emp_count;}
};
This has the advantage of rule-of-zero and it propagates the value to all constructors if any are defined explicitly.
Related
#include<iostream>
#include<string>
#include<vector>
using namespace std;
class Course
{
public:
string name;
string instructorInCharge;
int numberOfStudents;
int totalMarks;
Course(string u, string v, int p, int q){
this->name=u;
this->instructorInCharge=v;
this->numberOfStudents=p;
this->totalMarks=q;
}
vector<int> studentMarks (numberOfStudents);
};
class Labs:public Course
{
vector<int>labMarks(numberOfStudents);
};
int main()
{
Course c("Rahul","Hota",200,300);
cout<<"hello there";
}
When I compile this code I’m getting the following error:
1.cpp:20:31: error: 'numberOfStudents' is not a type
20 | vector<int> studentMarks (numberOfStudents);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1.cpp:28:29: error: 'numberOfStudents' is not a type
28 | vector<int>labMarks(numberOfStudents);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please tell me what my mistake is.
numberostudents was supposed to be the size of the vector. But not any function.
vector<int> studentMarks (numberOfStudents);
This is a function declaration. The return type is vector<int>, the name is studentMarks and it accepts a single parameter of type numberOfStudents. Except, as the error points out, numberOfStudents is not a type.
You cannot use parentheses to specify a default member initialiser. You have to either use curly braces:
T member {value};
or "equals" initialiser:
T member = value;
Note however, that you don't initialise numberOfStudents member, but rather assign it later in the constructor body. This assignment is after studentMarks has been initialised, and thus the default member initialiser of studentMarks won't reflect the size that was assigned. Rather, the behaviour of the program would be undefined due to the use of an indeterminate value. This can be fixed by initialising numberOfStudents in the member initialiser list.
If you want in-class initialization, you may do this:
vector<int> studentMarks = vector<int>(numberOfStudents);
Now the default constructor will initialize studentMarks with vector<int>(numberOfStudents) when an instance of Course is created.
However, this will cause undefined behavior since numberOfStudents is not initialized before the initialization of studentMarks. You could use the member initalizer list instead:
Course(std::string u, std::string v, int p, int q)
: name(std::move(u)),
instructorInCharge(std::move(v)),
numberOfStudents(p),
totalMarks(q),
studentMarks(numberOfStudents)
{
}
and likewise for the Labs class:
class Labs : public Course {
public:
Labs(std::string u, std::string v, int p, int q)
: Course(u, v, p, q), // initialize the base class part of a `Labs`
labMarks(p) // initialize the added member variable
{
}
std::vector<int> labMarks;
};
You can also use resize method of std::vector.
#include<iostream>
#include<string>
#include<vector>
using namespace std;
class Course
{
public:
string name;
string instructorInCharge;
int numberOfStudents;
int totalMarks;
vector<int> studentMarks;
Course(string u, string v, int p, int q){
this->name = u;
this->instructorInCharge = v;
this->numberOfStudents = p;
this->totalMarks = q;
this->studentMarks.resize(numberOfStudents);
}
};
class Labs : public Course
{
vector<int> labMarks;
public:
Labs(string u, string v, int p, int q) : Course(u, v, p, q)
{
labMarks.resize(p);
}
};
int main()
{
Course c("Rahul","Hota",200,300);
cout<<"hello there";
}
I want to make a function associated to a data type say int that can be accessed using the dot operator such that:
int x = 9;
std::string s = x.ToString();
I know how to do so with std::string and the likes but not the int data type. Is that possible?
No, this is not possible. An int is a primitive type whereas a std::string is a class type that contains methods.
However, you could create your own struct/class in order to implement this functionality. The struct Int type has a constructor which takes in an integer and uses an initializer list :a(value) to assign the internal integer with a given value.
#include <string>
struct Int
{
int a;
Int(int value)
: a(value)
{}
std::string ToString() const { return std::to_string(a); }
};
int main()
{
Int a = 20;
std::string s = a.ToString();
}
I have a class that needs to use some big arrays, initialized via some complex functions, that will be the same for every instance and will only be read after initialization.
I searched on SO and found some answers on initializing static arrays like this:
char A::a[6] = {1,2,3,4,5,6};
But in my case I need to calculate the arrays at runtime via some function.
(How) can I do it?
Re
” will be the same for every instance and will only be read after initialization
Producing a value is the job of a function.
Just define a function that returns the data you need.
You can use it to initialize a static data member (or whatever). For a header only module, if that's relevant, you will need to employ solution to the "inline data" problem, e.g. a Meyers' singleton (a function that returns a reference to a local static variable). Like this:
#include <vector>
namespace my {
using std::vector;
inline
auto squares()
-> vector<int>
{
vector<int> result;
for( int i = 1; i <= 12; ++i ) { result.push_back( i*i ); }
return result;
}
class A
{
private:
static
auto a()
-> const vector<int>&
{
static const vector<int> the_values = squares();
return the_values;
}
public:
A(){}
};
} // namespace my
You can't use {} sintaxis in execution time, you can use a method:
class A
{
static vector<char> a;
//...
public:
static void initStatic();
}
void A::initStatic()
{
a.resize( /*put the size here... */);
for (auto& x : a)
x = //something...
}
vector reference: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector
If you aren't using vectors, this works. The reason I let A::initialize do the work, rather than just calling one of these externally defined functions, is that we can and should expect the data member a to be private.
//Declare a function pointer type, so you can pass it into A's
//an initialization function takes in the array and its size
typedef void (*initFunction) (char A[], int arraySize);
//see http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/function-pointers.html
// for more on function pointers
class A
{
public:
void initialize (initFunction myInitFunction);
...
private:
char a[ARRAYSIZE];
};
void A::initialize (initFunction myInitFunction)
{
(*myInitFunction) (a, ARRAYSIZE);
}
...
A myA;
myA.initialize (yourArrayInitializingFunction);
Or maybe your initialization functions don't take in arrays and initialize them, but return arrays:
class A
{
public:
void initialize (const char* aInit);
...
};
void A::initialize (const char* aInit)
{
for (int i = 0; i < ARRAYSIZE: ++i)
a[i] = aInit[i];
}
...
A myA;
myA.initialize (yourArrayReturningFunction ());
If you're using vectors, code is simpler:
class A
{
public:
void initialize (const vector<char>& aInit) { a = aInit; }
...
private:
vector<char> a;
};
My suggestion:
Instead of using a static member variable, use a static member function to provide access to the array.
In the static member function, create a static function variable that can be populated the first time it is needed.
Here's what I am thinking of:
char* A::getArray()
{
static char a[6] = {0};
static bool inited = false;
if ( !inited )
{
// Initialize the array elements
a[0] = ... ;
...
a[5] = ... ;
inited = true;
}
return a;
}
I have a class that contains an array. I want this array to be set at the length of a constant:
// Entities.h
class Entities
{
private:
const int maxLimit;
int objects[maxLimit];
int currentUsage;
public:
Entities();
bool addObject(int identifier);
void showStructure();
};
The main problem I'm having is with the constructor. I thought:
// Entities.cpp
Entities::Entities() : maxLimit(50)
{
currentUsage = 0;
cout << "Entities constructed with max of 50" << endl;
}
would have been sufficient...but not so. I don't know if I can use the initialiser list for array initialisation.
How can I initialise the objects array using the maxLimit const? I'm relatively new to classes in C++ but I have experience with Java. I'm mainly testing out this phenomenon of 'constness'.
The array must have a constant length. I mean a length that is the same for all objects of that class. That is because the compiler has to know the size of each object, and it must be the same for all objects of that particular class. So, the following would do it:
class Entities
{
private:
static const int maxLimit = 50;
int objects[maxLimit];
int currentUsage;
public:
Entities();
bool addObject(int identifier);
void showStructure();
};
And in the cpp file:
const int Entities::maxLimit;
I prefer to use an enumeration for that, because i won't have to define the static in the cpp file then:
class Entities
{
private:
enum { maxLimit = 50 };
int objects[maxLimit];
int currentUsage;
public:
Entities();
bool addObject(int identifier);
void showStructure();
};
If you want to have a per-object size of the array, then you can use a dynamic array. vector is such one:
class Entities
{
private:
const int maxLimit;
std::vector<int> objects;
int currentUsage;
public:
Entities();
bool addObject(int identifier);
void showStructure();
};
// Entities.cpp
Entities::Entities(int limit)
: maxLimit(limit), objects(limit), currentUsage(0)
{
cout << "Entities constructed with max of 50" << endl;
}
Best is to do as much initialization in the initialization list as possible.
You can use template argument if you need to set array size at compile time:
template<size_t maxLimit>
class Entities
{
int objects[maxLimit];
public:
Entities() {}
...
};
Entities<1000> inst;
to dynamically allocate the memory you may need to use the 'new' keyword like
objects would be defined like:
int * objects;
inside the constructor you would do:
objects = new int [maxLimit];
edit:
forgot to mention, you'll need to deallocate the array when you're done, probably in the destructor of the class.
delete[] objects;
const ints have to be initialized at declaration. If you don't know the value that it has to be at the time of declaration, you're going to have to adopt a different strategy.
You'll need to create the array in the constructor, while keeping a pointer outside. Is this what you want to do?
In your class :
private:
int maxLimit;
int* objects;
And outside:
Entities::Entities() : maxLimit(50)
{
currentUsage = 0;
cout << "Entities constructed with max of 50" << endl;
objects = new int[maxLimit];
}
Entities::~Entities()
{
delete [] objects;
}
If all objects have the same length, then length can be static. This makes it a constant integral expression allowed as an array bound:
class Entities
{
private:
static const int maxLimit = 50;
int objects[maxLimit];
int currentUsage;
//...
};
Remember that sizeof(Entities) is a valid expression. Each Entities object has that same size.
Use std::vector and you get the expected behaviour. No need to worry about pointers, copies, etc
#include <vector>
class Entities
{
private:
const int limit;
std::vector<int> objects;
public:
Entities(int a_limit)
: limit(a_limit), objects(a_limit)
{ }
void addObject(int identifier)
{
if (objects.size() == limit)
throw whatever;
objects.push_back(identifier);
}
};
I have the following class in C++:
class a {
const int b[2];
// other stuff follows
// and here's the constructor
a(void);
}
The question is, how do I initialize b in the initialization list, given that I can't initialize it inside the body of the function of the constructor, because b is const?
This doesn't work:
a::a(void) :
b([2,3])
{
// other initialization stuff
}
Edit: The case in point is when I can have different values for b for different instances, but the values are known to be constant for the lifetime of the instance.
With C++11 the answer to this question has now changed and you can in fact do:
struct a {
const int b[2];
// other bits follow
// and here's the constructor
a();
};
a::a() :
b{2,3}
{
// other constructor work
}
int main() {
a a;
}
Like the others said, ISO C++ doesn't support that. But you can workaround it. Just use std::vector instead.
int* a = new int[N];
// fill a
class C {
const std::vector<int> v;
public:
C():v(a, a+N) {}
};
It is not possible in the current standard. I believe you'll be able to do this in C++0x using initializer lists (see A Brief Look at C++0x, by Bjarne Stroustrup, for more information about initializer lists and other nice C++0x features).
std::vector uses the heap. Geez, what a waste that would be just for the sake of a const sanity-check. The point of std::vector is dynamic growth at run-time, not any old syntax checking that should be done at compile-time. If you're not going to grow then create a class to wrap a normal array.
#include <stdio.h>
template <class Type, size_t MaxLength>
class ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller {
private:
size_t length;
public:
ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller() : length(0) {
}
virtual ~ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller() {
}
virtual void Fill(Type *array) = 0;
protected:
void add_element(Type *array, const Type & element)
{
if(length >= MaxLength) {
// todo: throw more appropriate out-of-bounds exception
throw 0;
}
array[length] = element;
length++;
}
};
template <class Type, size_t Length>
class ConstFixedSizeArray {
private:
Type array[Length];
public:
explicit ConstFixedSizeArray(
ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller<Type, Length> & filler
) {
filler.Fill(array);
}
const Type *Array() const {
return array;
}
size_t ArrayLength() const {
return Length;
}
};
class a {
private:
class b_filler : public ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller<int, 2> {
public:
virtual ~b_filler() {
}
virtual void Fill(int *array) {
add_element(array, 87);
add_element(array, 96);
}
};
const ConstFixedSizeArray<int, 2> b;
public:
a(void) : b(b_filler()) {
}
void print_items() {
size_t i;
for(i = 0; i < b.ArrayLength(); i++)
{
printf("%d\n", b.Array()[i]);
}
}
};
int main()
{
a x;
x.print_items();
return 0;
}
ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller and ConstFixedSizeArray are reusable.
The first allows run-time bounds checking while initializing the array (same as a vector might), which can later become const after this initialization.
The second allows the array to be allocated inside another object, which could be on the heap or simply the stack if that's where the object is. There's no waste of time allocating from the heap. It also performs compile-time const checking on the array.
b_filler is a tiny private class to provide the initialization values. The size of the array is checked at compile-time with the template arguments, so there's no chance of going out of bounds.
I'm sure there are more exotic ways to modify this. This is an initial stab. I think you can pretty much make up for any of the compiler's shortcoming with classes.
ISO standard C++ doesn't let you do this. If it did, the syntax would probably be:
a::a(void) :
b({2,3})
{
// other initialization stuff
}
Or something along those lines. From your question it actually sounds like what you want is a constant class (aka static) member that is the array. C++ does let you do this. Like so:
#include <iostream>
class A
{
public:
A();
static const int a[2];
};
const int A::a[2] = {0, 1};
A::A()
{
}
int main (int argc, char * const argv[])
{
std::cout << "A::a => " << A::a[0] << ", " << A::a[1] << "\n";
return 0;
}
The output being:
A::a => 0, 1
Now of course since this is a static class member it is the same for every instance of class A. If that is not what you want, ie you want each instance of A to have different element values in the array a then you're making the mistake of trying to make the array const to begin with. You should just be doing this:
#include <iostream>
class A
{
public:
A();
int a[2];
};
A::A()
{
a[0] = 9; // or some calculation
a[1] = 10; // or some calculation
}
int main (int argc, char * const argv[])
{
A v;
std::cout << "v.a => " << v.a[0] << ", " << v.a[1] << "\n";
return 0;
}
Where I've a constant array, it's always been done as static. If you can accept that, this code should compile and run.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
class a {
static const int b[2];
public:
a(void) {
for(int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
printf("b[%d] = [%d]\n", i, b[i]);
}
}
};
const int a::b[2] = { 4, 2 };
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
a foo;
return 0;
}
You can't do that from the initialization list,
Have a look at this:
http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/initialization-lists-c++.html
:)
A solution without using the heap with std::vector is to use boost::array, though you can't initialize array members directly in the constructor.
#include <boost/array.hpp>
const boost::array<int, 2> aa={ { 2, 3} };
class A {
const boost::array<int, 2> b;
A():b(aa){};
};
How about emulating a const array via an accessor function? It's non-static (as you requested), and it doesn't require stl or any other library:
class a {
int privateB[2];
public:
a(int b0,b1) { privateB[0]=b0; privateB[1]=b1; }
int b(const int idx) { return privateB[idx]; }
}
Because a::privateB is private, it is effectively constant outside a::, and you can access it similar to an array, e.g.
a aobj(2,3); // initialize "constant array" b[]
n = aobj.b(1); // read b[1] (write impossible from here)
If you are willing to use a pair of classes, you could additionally protect privateB from member functions. This could be done by inheriting a; but I think I prefer John Harrison's comp.lang.c++ post using a const class.
interestingly, in C# you have the keyword const that translates to C++'s static const, as opposed to readonly which can be only set at constructors and initializations, even by non-constants, ex:
readonly DateTime a = DateTime.Now;
I agree, if you have a const pre-defined array you might as well make it static.
At that point you can use this interesting syntax:
//in header file
class a{
static const int SIZE;
static const char array[][10];
};
//in cpp file:
const int a::SIZE = 5;
const char array[SIZE][10] = {"hello", "cruel","world","goodbye", "!"};
however, I did not find a way around the constant '10'. The reason is clear though, it needs it to know how to perform accessing to the array. A possible alternative is to use #define, but I dislike that method and I #undef at the end of the header, with a comment to edit there at CPP as well in case if a change.