I have the following class called Tree, which has a member object of class Leaf. Leaf requires a parameter from Tree (height_) for its construction. I can write an intialize method for this. But do we know the order in which constructors are called, so that dependencies in the construction of member objects are met when the Tree class is constructed?
In other words, when there is dependency in the instantiation of a member object, is an separate initialization method (for the member object) the only way to go?
A minimal code below, I have put a question mark in the argument to the constructor of Leaf to indicate my question:
class Tree {
private:
float height_;
Leaf leaf_(?);
public:
explicit Leaf(const std::istream& input);
};
void Tree::Tree(const std::istream& input){
// read height_ from input
...
}
class Leaf {
private:
float height_fraction_;
public:
// height is required for construction of Leaf class
Leaf(const float& height);
};
void Leaf::Leaf(const float& height)
{
height_fraction_ = 0.5*height;
}
Construction of the members happens in the order in which they are declared. This is very important for the following. If the order of declaration does not match the order in which the dependencies are used, then the program will have undefined behavior.
The initializers with which they are constructed can be specified in the member initializer list of the constructor after after a colon before the function body:
void Tree::Tree(const std::istream& input)
: height_(/* initializer for height_ */),
leaf_(/* initializer for leaf_ */)
{
//...
}
(Instead of parentheses, braces for list-initialization may also be used.)
In the initializer for leaf_, the value of height_ can be used.
Since you probably need to do some work to get height_ from the inputs, you probably want to write an extra function for that and call it for /* initializer for height_ */.
Related
I'm having trouble with something that seems very easy, so I must be overlooking something.
I need to construct a class that has a field that is also a class (non-POD). The class of the field has a default constructor and a "real" constructor. The thing is that I really can't construct the field in the initializer list, because in reality the constructor has a parameter that is a vector which needs a somewhat complex for loop to fill.
Here is a minimal example that reproduces the problem.
ConstructorsTest.h:
class SomeProperty {
public:
SomeProperty(int param1); //Ordinary constructor.
SomeProperty(); //Default constructor.
int param1;
};
class ConstructorsTest {
ConstructorsTest();
SomeProperty the_property;
};
ConstructorsTest.cpp:
#include "ConstructorsTest.h"
ConstructorsTest::ConstructorsTest() {
the_property(4);
}
SomeProperty::SomeProperty(int param1) : param1(param1) {}
SomeProperty::SomeProperty() : param1(0) {} //Default constructor, doesn't matter.
But this gives a compile error:
ConstructorsTest.cpp: In constructor 'ConstructorsTest::ConstructorsTest()':
ConstructorsTest.cpp:4:19: error: no match for call to '(SomeProperty) (int)'
the_property(4);
^
It gives no suggestions like it usually would of what functions could have been intended instead.
In the above example I would just initialize the_property in the initializer list, but in reality the 4 is actually a complex vector that needs to be generated first, so I really can't. Moving the_property(4) to the initializer list causes the compilation to succeed.
Other similar threads mention that the object must have a default constructor, or that it can't be const. Both requirements seem to have been met, here.
You can't initialize data member inside the constructor's body. (the_property(4); is just trying to invoke the_property as a functor.) You can only assign them like:
ConstructorsTest::ConstructorsTest() {
the_property = ...;
}
but in reality the 4 is actually a complex vector that needs to be generated first
You can add a member function which generate the necessary data, and use it to initialize the data member in member initializer list. e.g.
class ConstructorsTest {
...
static int generateData();
};
int ConstructorsTest::generateData() {
return ...;
}
ConstructorsTest::ConstructorsTest() : the_property(generateData()) {
}
You cannot initialize a variable twice.1 When your constructor has started, all member subobjects will have been constructed. If you do not provide a member initializer in the constructor, or a default member initializer in the class definition, then it will perform default initialization. Regardless of what form it takes, you can't construct it again.
Complex multi-statement initialization is best done via a lambda function:
ConstructorsTest::ConstructorsTest()
: the_property( []{ /* Do Complex Initialization */}() )
{
}
1: Well... you can, but not like that. And you really shouldn't for cases as simple as this.
I am coming from the Java background. I have the following program.
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
class First {
public:
First(int someVal): a(someVal) {
}
int a;
};
class Second {
public:
First first;
Second() { // The other option would be to add default value as ": first(0)"
first = First(123);
}
};
int main()
{
Second second;
std::cout << "hello" << second.first.a << std::endl;
}
In class Second, I wanted to variable first to remain uninitialized until I specifically initialize it in Second()'s constructor. Is there a way to do it? Or am I just left with 2 options?:
Provide a parameter-less constructor.
Initialize it with some default value and later re-assign the required value.
I can't initialize first in the initializer-list with the right value, since the value is obtained after some operation. So, the actual required value for first is available in Second() constructor only.
MY suggestion: Use a function:
private: static int calculate_first(int input) {return input*5;}
explicit Second(int input) : first(calculate_first(input)) {}
Base classes will be initialized in the order they're declared in the class inheritance list, and then members will be initialized in the order that they're listed in the class, so the calculation can depend on non-static member-variables and base classes if they have already been initialized.
Alternatively:
Default constructor, then reassign:
explicit Second(int input) { first = input*5; }
Dummy value, then reassign:
explicit Second(int input) : first(0) { first = input*5; }
Use boost::optional (or std::optional as of C++17):
boost::optional<First> first;
explicit Second(int input) { first = input*5; }
Use the heap:
std::unique_ptr<First> first;
explicit Second(int input) { first.reset(new First(input*5));}
Second(const Second& r) first(new First(*(r->first))) {}
Second& operator=(const Second& r) {first.reset(new First(*(r->first)));}
Placement new:
This is tricky and not suggested
and worse in every way than boost::optional
So sample deliberately missing.
But it is an option.
Initialize first in the member initializer list.
It may help to perform your calculations in a helper function and use a forwarding constructor:
class Second {
public:
Second() : Second(helper_function()) {}
private:
Second(int calc): first(calc) {}
static int helper_function() { return ...; }
First first;
};
This sentence is the core of the problem:
I can't initialize first in the initializer-list with the right value,
since the value is obtained after some operation.
You should know that what you want to do here is not perfect programming style in Java, either. Leaving the field with some default value and then assigning it a bit later after some calculations have been done effectively prevents it from being final, and consequently the class from being immutable.
In any case, your goal must be to push those calculations directly into the initialization of the member, using private helper functions (which may be static):
class Second {
private:
First first;
static int getInitializationData()
{
// complicated calculations go here...
return result_of_calculations;
}
public:
Second() : first(getInitializationData()) {}
};
In my opinion, everything else is just a workaround and will complicate your life in the long run.
You can just do what you said in the comments, or, you can make first a pointer to First and give it memory whenever you like, although i don't recommend this way
One way to separate object lifetimes is to use the heap, make first a pointer and initialize it anytime you like:
class Second {
public:
First* first;
Second() {
first = new First(123);
}
};
of course, you'll probably want to use a smart pointer of some sort rather than a raw pointer.
If you don't code to explicitly initialize a member variable, the default initializer is used to initialize it.
The draft C++ standard has the following about initialization of base classes and member variables:
12.6 Initialization [class.init]
1 When no initializer is specified for an object of (possibly cv-qualified) class type (or array thereof), or the initializer has the form (), the object is initialized as specified in 8.5.
And
12.6.1 Explicit initialization [class.expl.init]
1 An object of class type can be initialized with a parenthesized expression-list, where the expression-list is construed as an argument list for a constructor that is called to initialize the object. Alternatively, a single assignment-expression can be specified as an initializer using the = form of initialization. Either direct-initialization semantics or copy-initialization semantics apply; see 8.5.
I want to know what's difference in the following two class.
example 1:
class A
{
string name;
public:
A(const char* _name):name(_name){}
void print(){cout<<"A's name:"<<name<<endl;}
};
example 2:
class A
{
string name;
public:
A(const char* _name){name(_name);}
void print(){cout<<"A's name:"<<name<<endl;}}
why the example 1 is passed and the last one is wrong?
Thanks
In example 1 you initialize the string with the given value right away.
In example 2 you create an empty string first and assign it later on.
Despite some performance differences and ignoring possible differences due to copy constructor handling etc. it's essentially the same result.
However once you use a const member you'll have to use example 1's way to do it, e.g. I usually create unique IDs the following way:
class SomeObject
{
static unsigned int nextID = 0;
const unsigned int ID;
SomeObject() : ID(nextID++)
{
// you can't change ID here anymore due to it being const
}
}
The first example is an actual initialization. It has a number of advantages, including being the only way to set up const members, and having proper exception-safety.
The second example is not valid C++, AFAIK. If you had instead written name = name_, then this would just be normal assignment. Of course, this isn't always possible; the object might be const, or not have an assignment operator defined. This approach could also be less efficient that the first example, because the object is both default-initialized and assigned.
As for why the initializer list is before the constructor body; well, that's just the way the language has been defined.
That's just how the language is defined. The member initializers should be placed before the body of the constructor.
In the first example the member name is initialized with a ctr getting char * as parameter.
In the second case it is initialized with a default ctr at first and it gets value by the assignment operator (operator=) later. That's why it is wrong with your case that it is already constructed there so you can not use the ctr once again you could just use the assignment operator.
The reason is that name lookup works different in initializer lists and function bodies:
class A
{
std::string foo; // member name
public:
A(const char* foo) // argument name
: foo(foo) // member foo, followed by argument foo.
{
std::cout << foo; // argument foo.
}
};
If the initializer list was inside the function body, there would be an ambiguity between member foo and argument foo.
The motivation behind the initialization list is due to const field holding a object by value (as opposed to reference/pointer field).
Such fields must be initialized exactly once (due to their const-ness). If C++ didn't have initialization list then a ctor would look something like:
class A {
public:
const string s;
const string t;
A() {
// Access to either s or t is not allowed - they weren't initialized
s = "some-string";
// now you can access s but you can't access t
f(*this);
t = "some other string";
// From now you can access both ...
}
}
void f(A& a) {
// Can you access a.s or a.t?
cout << a.s << a.t;
}
Without an initialization list a ctor can pass a partially-initialized object of type A to a function, and that function will have no way of knowing which fields are initialized yet. Too risky and very difficult for the compiler/linker to check.
By instantiating an object in C++ with the following class I get a segmentation fault or aborts, depending on the order declaring member variables. E. g. putting mMemberVar and mAnotherMemberVar after mAnotherCountVar results in a segfault. From this listing I removed a std::ofstream from the member variables, which caused the segmentation fault independent of its position.
I think the order is not directly the problem, but what do you think could the reason be? This class is part of a huge project, but this in this class is the place, where the error appeared the first time.
class COneClass : public IInterface
{
public:
COneClass();
virtual ~COneClass();
static const unsigned int sStaticVar;
static const unsigned int sAnotherStaticVar;
private:
COneClass();
COneClass(const COneClass& );
COneClass& operator=(const COneClass& );
int mMemberVar;
int mAnotherMemberVar;
bool mIsActive;
bool mBoolMemberVar;
bool mAnotherBoolMemberVar;
unsigned int mCountVar;
unsigned int mAnotherCountVar;
};
COneClass::COneClass() :
mMemberVar(0),
mAnotherMemberVar(0),
mIsActive(false),
mBoolMemberVar(false),
mAnotherBoolMemberVar(false),
mCountVar(sStaticVar),
mAnotherCountVar(sAnotherStaticVar)
{
}
the class members are initinised by the order they are declared. the order in the init list does not matter. In your case it's this order:
mMemberVar -> mAnotherMemberVar -> mIsActive -> mBoolMemberVar -> mAnotherBoolMemberVar -> mCountVar -> mAnotherCountVar;
Perhaps it is a case of the "static initialization order fiasco", http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/ctors.html#faq-10.16, as a result of initializing mCountVar and mAnotherCountVar with static members?
You could init to zero in the list and then assign in the body of the constructor.
Could be "static initialization order fiasco" judging by the fact that you have public static variables and a private constructor (speaking of which how can you have a public and private definition of the constructor???). These signs indicate the possibility that there is a dependency with other classes here.
The members’ constructors are called before the body of the containing class’ own constructor
is executed. The constructors are called in the order in which they are declared in the class rather
than the order in which they appear in the initializer list.
To avoid confusion, it is best to specify the initializers in declaration order.
The member destructors are called in the reverse order of construction every thing work properly
class MyClass//**1: mem-init**
{
private:
long number;
bool on;
public:
MyClass(long n, bool ison) : number(n), on(ison) {}
};
MyClass(long n, bool ison) //2 initialization within constructor's body
{
number = n;
on = ison;
}
There is no substantial difference between the two forms in the case of MyClass's constructor. This is due to the way mem-initialization lists are processed by the compiler. The compiler scans the mem-initialization list and inserts the initialization code into the constructor's body before any user-written code. Thus, the constructor in the first example is expanded by the compiler into the constructor in the second example. Nonetheless, the choice between using a mem-initialization list and initialization inside the constructor's body is significant in the following four cases:
Initialization of const members
Initialization of reference members
Passing arguments to a constructor of a base class or an embedded object
Initialization of member objects
I think the whole class is not directly the problem. Can you produce a minimal code that crashes just by using this class? It seems to me that the problem is somewhere else in your code base.
However, you may add a bool Invariant() const; function to that class and call it (only in debug builds) with assert(Invariant()); at the end of your constructor and on entering and exiting all your public functions. This might help you to "crash early, crash often" and hence point you to some of the problematic code.
This doesn't look like your real code. But be aware in your real code, that class members are constructed in the order they are defined in the class, REGARDLESS of the order of the initializer list in the constructor. Given that you mention changing the order of the members in the class affects the problem, this might be what's wrong. For example, your code might do something like this:
class MyClass {
public:
const int member1;
const int member2;
MyClass() {
: member2(0),
: member1(member2) // ERROR: this runs first because member1 is defined first
// member2 not yet constructed; assigns undefined value to member1
{}
};
There's nothing in the code you've posted which is in any way abnormal. Either something in the IInterface constructor is failing, or something else entirely is going wrong. Perhaps you've a buffer overflow somewhere which is reading the data you've changing the structural order of.
I've been programming in C++ a while and I've used both methods:
class Stuff {
public:
Stuff( int nr ) : n( nr ) { }
private:
int n;
}
Or
class Stuff {
public:
Stuff( int nr ) {
n = nr;
}
private:
int n;
}
Note: This is not the same as this, similar but not the same.
What is considered best practice?
Initializer lists are preferred. See FAQ 10.6
One big advantage to using initializers: If an exception is thrown anywhere within the initializer list, the destructors will be called for those members that had already been initialized -- and only for those members.
When you use the contructor body to initialize the object, it's up to you to handle exceptions properly and unwind the object as appropriate. This is usually much harder to get right.
Use the initializer list when possible. For an int, it doesn't matter much either way, but for a more complex member object, you'd end up with the default constructor of the object being called, followed by an assignment to that object, which is likely to end up being slower.
Plus, you have to do it that way anyway for const members or members which don't have a default constructor.
If possible, use the first version.
The first is initializing using intializer lists, and actually calls the constructors of the members.
The second is assignment. If n was of a type with a default constructor, it the would have already been called, and then you'd be assigning to it. If n didn't have a default constructor, you'd be forced to use the first type. Likewise if n was a reference: int &n.
If there are no constructors of you members that directly take one of the parameters to your constructor, it may be worthwhile to add private static functions that can do the conversion for you.
I generally try to do the initializer list when I can. For one thing, this makes it explicit that you are initializing code in the constructor. const memebers have to be initialized this way.
If you just put code in the constructor's body, it is quite possible someone may decide to come along and move a big chunk of it into a non-constructor "setup" routine later.
It can be taken overboard though. I have a coworker who likes to create classes that have 2 pages of initilizer code, no constructor code, and perhaps 2 pages for the entire rest of the class' code. I find that really tough to read.
I want to add that you don't need to declare the initializer list on the Header (.h). It can be done at the implementation of the constructor (which is very common).
So then:
//Stuff.h
class Stuff {
public:
Stuff( int nr );
private:
int n;
}
//Stuff.cpp
Stuff::Stuff(int nr)
: n(nr)
{
//initalize complex members
}
is legal and imo concentrates the initialization of fields where it matters. Sometimes we need to initialize complex members in the body, so you have your initializer list and the complex initialization all in the .cpp file.
The second option is not initialization but assignment. With types that have user defined default constructors, the second option will call the default constructor and later on call the assignment operator (whether user defined or not) to assign the value.
Some types cannot be default initialized: If you have an attribute without default constructor, hold references (constant or not) or have constant attributes they must be initialized in the initializer list.
Arrays can be value-initialized in the initialization list, but not in the constructor body:
class X {
public:
X() : array() {} // value-initializes the array
// equivalent to:
// X() { for ( int i = 0; i < 10; ++i ) array[i]=0; }
private:
int array[10];
};
For POD types, you can value-initialize them in the initialization list but not inside the brackets:
class X {
public:
X() : pod() {} // value-initializes
// equivalent to (but easier to read and subtly faster as it avoids the copy):
// X() { pod = {}; }
private:
PODType pod;
};
Finally, some classes offer functionality through the use of constructors that will be more complex (if achievable) after default construction.
class X
{
public:
X() : v(10) {} // construct a vector of 10 default initialized integers
// equivalent to:
// X() { for ( int i = 0; i < 10; ++i ) v.push_back(0); }
private:
std::vector<int> v;
};
Last, whenever they are in fact equivalent, initialization lists are more idiomatic in C++.