Related
Is it possible to force C++ to construct an object in the scope of a calling function? What I mean is to explicitly do what an return value optimization (RVO) does.
I have some container classes which are in a chain of derivation. Since the classes are constructed with stack data, they can't be returned, so I disabled the copy constructor and assignment operators. For each class, I am providing an iterator. The constructor of each iterator has only one argument: a pointer to the container class. To get the iterator, I want to use this function:
BindPackIterator BindPack.begin(void)
{
return BindPackIterator(this);
}
in this context:
for (auto i=bindpack.begin(); !i.end(); ++i) { i.run(); }
The compiler issues errors, complaining about not being able to copy the BindPackIterator object. Remember, I disabled them.
What I want to happen is for the BindPackIterator to be instantiated in the calling function's scope to avoid either a copy or move operation.
In this particular case, I know I can do a workaround, changing the begin function to return a BindPack pointer,
for(BindPackIterator i=bindpack.begin(); !i.end(); ++i) { i.run(); }
and I've experimented a bit, without success, with decltype and this construction:
auto BindPack::begin(void) -> BindPackIterator
{
return BindPackIterator(this);
}
This is just the example with which I'm currently frustrated. There have been other projects where the obvious solution is for the function to instantiate an object in the calling function's scope. The move constructor (foo&&) helps in some cases, but for objects with many data members, even that can be inefficient. Is there a design pattern that allows object construction/instantiation in the caller's scope?
Putting n.m.'s comment into code, write a constructor for BindPackIterator that takes a BindPack and initializes the iterator in the "begin" state. e.g:
BindPackIterator(BindPack* pack) : pack(pack), pos(0){ }
That you can use in your for loop:
BindPack pack;
for(BindPackIterator i(&pack); !i.end(); ++i){
i.run();
}
Live demo
Is it fair to say that the answer is "No," it is not possible to construct a returned object in the calling function's scope? Or in other words, you can't explicitly tell the compiler to use RVO.
To be sure, it is a dangerous possibility: stack memory used to construct the object while available in the called function will not be valid in the calling function, even though the values might remain untouched in the abandoned stack frame. This would result in unpredictable behavior.
Upon further consideration, while summing up at the end of this response, I realized that the compiler may not be able to accurately predict the necessary stack size for objects created in the calling function and initialized in a called function, and it would not be possible to dynamically expand the stack frame if the execution had passed to another function. These considerations make my whole idea impossible.
That said, I want to address the workarounds that solve my iterator example.
I had to abandon the idea of using auto like this:
for (auto i=bindpack.begin(); !i.end(); ++i)
Having abandoned auto, and realizing that it's more sensible to explicitly name the variable anyway (if the iterator is different enough to require a new class, it's better to name it to avoid confusion) , I am using this constructor:
BindPackIterator(BindPack &ref) : m_ref_pack(ref), m_index(0) { }
in order to be able to write:
for (BindPackIterator i=bindpack; !i.end(); ++i)
preferring to initialize with an assignment. I used to do this when I was last heavily using C++ in the late 1990's, but it's not been working for me recently. The compiler would ask for a copy operator I didn't want to define for reasons stated above. Now I think that problem was due to my collection of constructors and assignment operators I define to pass the -Weffc++ test. Using simplified classes for this example allowed it to work.
Another workaround for an object more complicated than an iterator might be to use a tuple for the constructor argument for objects that need multiple variables to initialize. There could be a casting operator that returns the necessary tuple from the class that initializes the object.
The constructor could look like:
FancyObject(BigHairyTuple val) : m_data1(get<0>(val)), m_data2(get<1>(val), etc
and the contributing object would define this:
class Foo
{
...
operator BigHairyTuple(void) {
return BigHairyTuple(val1, val2, ...);
}
};
to allow:
FancyObject fo = foo;
I haven't tested this specific example, but I'm working with something similar and it seems likely to work, with some possible minor refinements.
Well, I need to return a pointer to an instance of a class that will be created inside a function. Is this appropriate?
this is example code:
template <typename T>
ImplicatedMembershipFunction<T>*
TriangularMF<T>::minImplicate(const T &constantSet) const
{
static ImplicatedType* resultingSet = new ImplicatedType();
// do something to generate resultingSet...
return resultingSet;
}
I want to return pointers, because need to have subclasses of a base class in a container. In the above code ImplicatedType is a class defined in TriangularMF<T> and derived from ImplicatedMembershipFunction<T>. There will be various template classes like TriangularMF that the have a nested class derived from ImplicatedMembershipFunction<T>, I need to treat with them in same way. For example, outside the library, I may want to do something like :
TriangularMF<double> trmf(0,1,2);
TrapesoidalMF<double> trpmf(0,1,3,2); // a class like TriangularMF but
// ImplicatedType is different
ImplicatedMembershipFunction<double>* itrmf = trmf.implicate(0.6);
ImplicatedMembershipFunction<double>* itrpmf = trpmf.implicate(0.6); // same as above.
// use them in the same way:
vector<ImplicatedMembershipFunction<double>*> vec;
vec.push_back(itrmf);
vec.push_back(itrpmf);
The reason that I don't want to use C++11 features like move semantics or std::shared_ptr is that I don't like to force my teammates to install newer versions of g++ on their computers. I can't give them a compiled version of the library, because it's heavily templated.
EDIT
The library is going to be threaded. Especially, the TriangularMF<T>::minImplicate will run in multiple threads at same time. So, making the minImplicate a mutal task, makes no sense for the performance.
Returning a pointer is not itself the issue, but you have to define a clean "policy" about whoi creates and who destroy.
In your code, you define a static pointer that is initialized with a new object the very first time its (pointer) definition is encountered.
The pointer itself will be destroyed just after main() will return, but what about the object it points to?
If you let something else to take care of the deletion, your function will continue to return that pointer even if the object is no more there. If you let it there, it will be killed out at the end of the program (not a "dangerous" leak, since it is just one object, but what about if its destructor has to take some sensible actions?)
You have most likely to declare, not a static pointer, but a static OBJECT, and return ... its address or its reference.
In that way the object is granted to exist up to program termination and to be properly destroyed after main() returns.
template <typename T>
ImplicatedMembershipFunction<T>*
TriangularMF<T>::minImplicate(const T &constantSet) const
{
static ImplicatedType resultingSet(....);
return &resultingSet;
}
Note that I eliminated your "do something to ..." since it will be executed every time (not just the very first) To initialize ImplicatedType, you had better to rely on the constructor.
Or, if you cannot construct it in one shot, do something like
template <typename T>
ImplicatedMembershipFunction<T>*
TriangularMF<T>::minImplicate(const T &constantSet) const
{
static ImplicatedType* resultingSet=0;
static bool init=true;
if(init)
{
init=false;
static ImplicatedType result;
resultingSet=&result;
// do something to generate resultingSet...
}
return resultingSet;
}
If you are in a multithreading situation, you also need a static mutex an lock it before if(init), unlocking at return.
This is a commonly used idiom for singletons:
class CMyClass {};
CMyClass& MyClass() {
static CMyClass mclass;
return mclass;
}
CMyClass will be constructed on first MyClass() function call.
it looks quite like your code, with the exception for pointer which will cause problems with destroying such crated instance. If you dont want to use shared_ptr here, then consider writing your own shared_ptr like template, then it should work fine.
[edit] if this code is going to be used in multithreaded environment, then using smart pointer here will be tricky
You can use this technique, but return a reference. The caller can take the address of the result if they need a pointer to store.
template <typename T>
ImplicatedMembershipFunction<T> &
TriangularMF<T>::minImplicate(const T &constantSet) const
{
static ImplicatedType* resultingSet = new ImplicatedType();
// do something to generate resultingSet...
return *resultingSet;
}
But, the danger of the code is that it is not inherently MT-safe. But if you know the code inside minImplicate is thread safe, or your code is single threaded, there are no issues.
I'm not a very experienced c++ coder and this has me stumped. I am passing a object (created elsewhere) to a function, I want to be able to store that object in some array and then run through the array to call a function on that object. Here is some pseudo code:
void AddObject(T& object) {
object.action(); // this works
T* objectList = NULL;
// T gets allocated (not shown here) ...
T[0] = object;
T[0].action(); // this doesn't work
}
I know the object is passing correctly, because the first call to object.action() does what it should. But when I store object in the array, then try to invoke action() it causes a big crash.
Likely my problem is that I simply tinkered with the .'s and *'s until it compiled, T[0].action() compliles but crashes at runtime.
The simplest answer to your question is that you must declare your container correctly and you must define an appropriate assigment operator for your class. Working as closely as possible from your example:
typedef class MyActionableClass T;
T* getGlobalPointer();
void AddInstance(T const& objInstance)
{
T* arrayFromElsewhere = getGlobalPointer();
//ok, now at this point we have a reference to an object instance
//and a pointer which we assume is at the base of an array of T **objects**
//whose first element we don't mind losing
//**copy** the instance we've received
arrayFromElsewhere[0] = objInstance;
//now invoke the action() method on our **copy**
arrayFromElsewhere[0].action();
}
Note the signature change to const reference which emphasizes that we are going to copy the original object and not change it in any way.
Also note carefully that arrayFromElsewhere[0].action() is NOT the same as objInstance.action() because you have made a copy — action() is being invoked in a different context, no matter how similar.
While it is obvious you have condensed, the condensation makes the reason for doing this much less obvious — specifying, for instance, that you want to maintain an array of callback objects would make a better case for “needing” this capability. It is also a poor choice to use “T” like you did because this tends to imply template usage to most experienced C++ programmers.
The thing that is most likely causing your “unexplained” crash is that assignment operator; if you don't define one the compiler will automatically generate one that works as a bitwise copy — almost certainly not what you want if your class is anything other than a collection of simple data types (POD).
For this to work properly on a class of any complexity you will likely need to define a deep copy or use reference counting; in C++ it is almost always a poor choice to let the compiler create any of ctor, dtor, or assignment for you.
And, of course, it would be a good idea to use standard containers rather than the simple array mechanism you implied by your example. In that case you should probably also define a default ctor, a virtual dtor, and a copy ctor because of the assumptions made by containers and algorithms.
If, in fact, you do not want to create a copy of your object but want, instead, to invoke action() on the original object but from within an array, then you will need an array of pointers instead. Again working closely to your original example:
typedef class MyActionableClass T;
T** getGlobalPointer();
void AddInstance(T& objInstance)
{
T** arrayFromElsewhere = getGlobalPointer();
//ok, now at this point we have a reference to an object instance
//and a pointer which we assume is at the base of an array of T **pointers**
//whose first element we don't mind losing
//**reference** the instance we've received by saving its address
arrayFromElsewhere[0] = &objInstance;
//now invoke the action() method on **the original instance**
arrayFromElsewhere[0]->action();
}
Note closely that arrayFromElsewhere is now an array of pointers to objects instead of an array of actual objects.
Note that I dropped the const modifier in this case because I don’t know if action() is a const method — with a name like that I am assuming not…
Note carefully the ampersand (address-of) operator being used in the assignment.
Note also the new syntax for invoking the action() method by using the pointer-to operator.
Finally be advised that using standard containers of pointers is fraught with memory-leak peril, but typically not nearly as dangerous as using naked arrays :-/
I'm surprised it compiles. You declare an array, objectList of 8 pointers to T. Then you assign T[0] = object;. That's not what you want, what you want is one of
T objectList[8];
objectList[0] = object;
objectList[0].action();
or
T *objectList[8];
objectList[0] = &object;
objectList[0]->action();
Now I'm waiting for a C++ expert to explain why your code compiled, I'm really curious.
You can put the object either into a dynamic or a static array:
#include <vector> // dynamic
#include <array> // static
void AddObject(T const & t)
{
std::array<T, 12> arr;
std::vector<T> v;
arr[0] = t;
v.push_back(t);
arr[0].action();
v[0].action();
}
This doesn't really make a lot of sense, though; you would usually have defined your array somewhere else, outside the function.
I could not sleep last night and started thinking about std::swap. Here is the familiar C++98 version:
template <typename T>
void swap(T& a, T& b)
{
T c(a);
a = b;
b = c;
}
If a user-defined class Foo uses external ressources, this is inefficient. The common idiom is to provide a method void Foo::swap(Foo& other) and a specialization of std::swap<Foo>. Note that this does not work with class templates since you cannot partially specialize a function template, and overloading names in the std namespace is illegal. The solution is to write a template function in one's own namespace and rely on argument dependent lookup to find it. This depends critically on the client to follow the "using std::swap idiom" instead of calling std::swap directly. Very brittle.
In C++0x, if Foo has a user-defined move constructor and a move assignment operator, providing a custom swap method and a std::swap<Foo> specialization has little to no performance benefit, because the C++0x version of std::swap uses efficient moves instead of copies:
#include <utility>
template <typename T>
void swap(T& a, T& b)
{
T c(std::move(a));
a = std::move(b);
b = std::move(c);
}
Not having to fiddle with swap anymore already takes a lot of burden away from the programmer.
Current compilers do not generate move constructors and move assignment operators automatically yet, but as far as I know, this will change. The only problem left then is exception-safety, because in general, move operations are allowed to throw, and this opens up a whole can of worms. The question "What exactly is the state of a moved-from object?" complicates things further.
Then I was thinking, what exactly are the semantics of std::swap in C++0x if everything goes fine? What is the state of the objects before and after the swap? Typically, swapping via move operations does not touch external resources, only the "flat" object representations themselves.
So why not simply write a swap template that does exactly that: swap the object representations?
#include <cstring>
template <typename T>
void swap(T& a, T& b)
{
unsigned char c[sizeof(T)];
memcpy( c, &a, sizeof(T));
memcpy(&a, &b, sizeof(T));
memcpy(&b, c, sizeof(T));
}
This is as efficient as it gets: it simply blasts through raw memory. It does not require any intervention from the user: no special swap methods or move operations have to be defined. This means that it even works in C++98 (which does not have rvalue references, mind you). But even more importantly, we can now forget about the exception-safety issues, because memcpy never throws.
I can see two potential problems with this approach:
First, not all objects are meant to be swapped. If a class designer hides the copy constructor or the copy assignment operator, trying to swap objects of the class should fail at compile-time. We can simply introduce some dead code that checks whether copying and assignment are legal on the type:
template <typename T>
void swap(T& a, T& b)
{
if (false) // dead code, never executed
{
T c(a); // copy-constructible?
a = b; // assignable?
}
unsigned char c[sizeof(T)];
std::memcpy( c, &a, sizeof(T));
std::memcpy(&a, &b, sizeof(T));
std::memcpy(&b, c, sizeof(T));
}
Any decent compiler can trivially get rid of the dead code. (There are probably better ways to check the "swap conformance", but that is not the point. What matters is that it's possible).
Second, some types might perform "unusual" actions in the copy constructor and copy assignment operator. For example, they might notify observers of their change. I deem this a minor issue, because such kinds of objects probably should not have provided copy operations in the first place.
Please let me know what you think of this approach to swapping. Would it work in practice? Would you use it? Can you identify library types where this would break? Do you see additional problems? Discuss!
So why not simply write a swap template that does exactly that: swap the object representations*?
There's many ways in which an object, once being constructed, can break when you copy the bytes it resides in. In fact, one could come up with a seemingly endless number of cases where this would not do the right thing - even though in practice it might work in 98% of all cases.
That's because the underlying problem to all this is that, other than in C, in C++ we must not treat objects as if they are mere raw bytes. That's why we have construction and destruction, after all: to turn raw storage into objects and objects back into raw storage. Once a constructor has run, the memory where the object resides is more than only raw storage. If you treat it as if it weren't, you will break some types.
However, essentially, moving objects shouldn't perform that much worse than your idea, because, once you start to recursively inline the calls to std::move(), you usually ultimately arrive at where built-ins are moved. (And if there's more to moving for some types, you'd better not fiddle with the memory of those yourself!) Granted, moving memory en bloc is usually faster than single moves (and it's unlikely that a compiler might find out that it could optimize the individual moves to one all-encompassing std::memcpy()), but that's the price we pay for the abstraction opaque objects offer us. And it's quite small, especially when you compare it to the copying we used to do.
You could, however, have an optimized swap() using std::memcpy() for aggregate types.
This will break class instances that have pointers to their own members. For example:
class SomeClassWithBuffer {
private:
enum {
BUFSIZE = 4096,
};
char buffer[BUFSIZE];
char *currentPos; // meant to point to the current position in the buffer
public:
SomeClassWithBuffer();
SomeClassWithBuffer(const SomeClassWithBuffer &that);
};
SomeClassWithBuffer::SomeClassWithBuffer():
currentPos(buffer)
{
}
SomeClassWithBuffer::SomeClassWithBuffer(const SomeClassWithBuffer &that)
{
memcpy(buffer, that.buffer, BUFSIZE);
currentPos = buffer + (that.currentPos - that.buffer);
}
Now, if you just do memcpy(), where would currentPos point? To the old location, obviously. This will lead to very funny bugs where each instance actually uses another's buffer.
Some types can be swapped but cannot be copied. Unique smart pointers are probably the best example. Checking for copyability and assignability is wrong.
If T isn't a POD type, using memcpy to copy/move is undefined behavior.
The common idiom is to provide a method void Foo::swap(Foo& other) and a specialization of std::swap<Foo>. Note that this does not work with class templates, …
A better idiom is a non-member swap and requiring users to call swap unqualified, so ADL applies. This also works with templates:
struct NonTemplate {};
void swap(NonTemplate&, NonTemplate&);
template<class T>
struct Template {
friend void swap(Template &a, Template &b) {
using std::swap;
#define S(N) swap(a.N, b.N);
S(each)
S(data)
S(member)
#undef S
}
};
The key is the using declaration for std::swap as a fallback. The friendship for Template's swap is nice for simplifying the definition; the swap for NonTemplate might also be a friend, but that's an implementation detail.
I deem this a minor issue, because
such kinds of objects probably should
not have provided copy operations in
the first place.
That is, quite simply, a load of wrong. Classes that notify observers and classes that shouldn't be copied are completely unrelated. How about shared_ptr? It obviously should be copyable, but it also obviously notifies an observer- the reference count. Now it's true that in this case, the reference count is the same after the swap, but that's definitely not true for all types and it's especially not true if multi-threading is involved, it's not true in the case of a regular copy instead of a swap, etc. This is especially wrong for classes that can be moved or swapped but not copied.
because in general, move operations
are allowed to throw
They are most assuredly not. It is virtually impossible to guarantee strong exception safety in pretty much any circumstance involving moves when the move might throw. The C++0x definition of the Standard library, from memory, explicitly states any type usable in any Standard container must not throw when moving.
This is as efficient as it gets
That is also wrong. You're assuming that the move of any object is purely it's member variables- but it might not be all of them. I might have an implementation-based cache and I might decide that within my class, I should not move this cache. As an implementation detail it is entirely within my rights not to move any member variables that I deem are not necessary to be moved. You, however, want to move all of them.
Now, it's true that your sample code should be valid for a lot of classes. However, it's extremely very definitely not valid for many classes that are completely and totally legitimate, and more importantly, it's going to compile down to that operation anyway if the operation can be reduced to that. This is breaking perfectly good classes for absolutely no benefit.
your swap version will cause havoc if someone uses it with polymorphic types.
consider:
Base *b_ptr = new Base(); // Base and Derived contain definitions
Base *d_ptr = new Derived(); // of a virtual function called vfunc()
yourmemcpyswap( *b_ptr, *d_ptr );
b_ptr->vfunc(); //now calls Derived::vfunc, while it should call Base::vfunc
d_ptr->vfunc(); //now calls Base::vfunc while it should call Derived::vfunc
//...
this is wrong, because now b contains the vtable of the Derived type, so Derived::vfunc is invoked on a object which isnt of type Derived.
The normal std::swap only swaps the data members of Base, so this is OK with std::swap
What's a good existing class/design pattern for multi-stage construction/initialization of an object in C++?
I have a class with some data members which should be initialized in different points in the program's flow, so their initialization has to be delayed. For example one argument can be read from a file and another from the network.
Currently I am using boost::optional for the delayed construction of the data members, but it's bothering me that optional is semantically different than delay-constructed.
What I need reminds features of boost::bind and lambda partial function application, and using these libraries I can probably design multi-stage construction - but I prefer using existing, tested classes. (Or maybe there's another multi-stage construction pattern which I am not familiar with).
The key issue is whether or not you should distinguish completely populated objects from incompletely populated objects at the type level. If you decide not to make a distinction, then just use boost::optional or similar as you are doing: this makes it easy to get coding quickly. OTOH you can't get the compiler to enforce the requirement that a particular function requires a completely populated object; you need to perform run-time checking of fields each time.
Parameter-group Types
If you do distinguish completely populated objects from incompletely populated objects at the type level, you can enforce the requirement that a function be passed a complete object. To do this I would suggest creating a corresponding type XParams for each relevant type X. XParams has boost::optional members and setter functions for each parameter that can be set after initial construction. Then you can force X to have only one (non-copy) constructor, that takes an XParams as its sole argument and checks that each necessary parameter has been set inside that XParams object. (Not sure if this pattern has a name -- anybody like to edit this to fill us in?)
"Partial Object" Types
This works wonderfully if you don't really have to do anything with the object before it is completely populated (perhaps other than trivial stuff like get the field values back). If you do have to sometimes treat an incompletely populated X like a "full" X, you can instead make X derive from a type XPartial, which contains all the logic, plus protected virtual methods for performing precondition tests that test whether all necessary fields are populated. Then if X ensures that it can only ever be constructed in a completely-populated state, it can override those protected methods with trivial checks that always return true:
class XPartial {
optional<string> name_;
public:
void setName(string x) { name_.reset(x); } // Can add getters and/or ctors
string makeGreeting(string title) {
if (checkMakeGreeting_()) { // Is it safe?
return string("Hello, ") + title + " " + *name_;
} else {
throw domain_error("ZOINKS"); // Or similar
}
}
bool isComplete() const { return checkMakeGreeting_(); } // All tests here
protected:
virtual bool checkMakeGreeting_() const { return name_; } // Populated?
};
class X : public XPartial {
X(); // Forbid default-construction; or, you could supply a "full" ctor
public:
explicit X(XPartial const& x) : XPartial(x) { // Avoid implicit conversion
if (!x.isComplete()) throw domain_error("ZOINKS");
}
X& operator=(XPartial const& x) {
if (!x.isComplete()) throw domain_error("ZOINKS");
return static_cast<X&>(XPartial::operator=(x));
}
protected:
virtual bool checkMakeGreeting_() { return true; } // No checking needed!
};
Although it might seem the inheritance here is "back to front", doing it this way means that an X can safely be supplied anywhere an XPartial& is asked for, so this approach obeys the Liskov Substitution Principle. This means that a function can use a parameter type of X& to indicate it needs a complete X object, or XPartial& to indicate it can handle partially populated objects -- in which case either an XPartial object or a full X can be passed.
Originally I had isComplete() as protected, but found this didn't work since X's copy ctor and assignment operator must call this function on their XPartial& argument, and they don't have sufficient access. On reflection, it makes more sense to publically expose this functionality.
I must be missing something here - I do this kind of thing all the time. It's very common to have objects that are big and/or not needed by a class in all circumstances. So create them dynamically!
struct Big {
char a[1000000];
};
class A {
public:
A() : big(0) {}
~A() { delete big; }
void f() {
makebig();
big->a[42] = 66;
}
private:
Big * big;
void makebig() {
if ( ! big ) {
big = new Big;
}
}
};
I don't see the need for anything fancier than that, except that makebig() should probably be const (and maybe inline), and the Big pointer should probably be mutable. And of course A must be able to construct Big, which may in other cases mean caching the contained class's constructor parameters. You will also need to decide on a copying/assignment policy - I'd probably forbid both for this kind of class.
I don't know of any patterns to deal with this specific issue. It's a tricky design question, and one somewhat unique to languages like C++. Another issue is that the answer to this question is closely tied to your individual (or corporate) coding style.
I would use pointers for these members, and when they need to be constructed, allocate them at the same time. You can use auto_ptr for these, and check against NULL to see if they are initialized. (I think of pointers are a built-in "optional" type in C/C++/Java, there are other languages where NULL is not a valid pointer).
One issue as a matter of style is that you may be relying on your constructors to do too much work. When I'm coding OO, I have the constructors do just enough work to get the object in a consistent state. For example, if I have an Image class and I want to read from a file, I could do this:
image = new Image("unicorn.jpeg"); /* I'm not fond of this style */
or, I could do this:
image = new Image(); /* I like this better */
image->read("unicorn.jpeg");
It can get difficult to reason about how a C++ program works if the constructors have a lot of code in them, especially if you ask the question, "what happens if a constructor fails?" This is the main benefit of moving code out of the constructors.
I would have more to say, but I don't know what you're trying to do with delayed construction.
Edit: I remembered that there is a (somewhat perverse) way to call a constructor on an object at any arbitrary time. Here is an example:
class Counter {
public:
Counter(int &cref) : c(cref) { }
void incr(int x) { c += x; }
private:
int &c;
};
void dontTryThisAtHome() {
int i = 0, j = 0;
Counter c(i); // Call constructor first time on c
c.incr(5); // now i = 5
new(&c) Counter(j); // Call the constructor AGAIN on c
c.incr(3); // now j = 3
}
Note that doing something as reckless as this might earn you the scorn of your fellow programmers, unless you've got solid reasons for using this technique. This also doesn't delay the constructor, just lets you call it again later.
Using boost.optional looks like a good solution for some use cases. I haven't played much with it so I can't comment much. One thing I keep in mind when dealing with such functionality is whether I can use overloaded constructors instead of default and copy constructors.
When I need such functionality I would just use a pointer to the type of the necessary field like this:
public:
MyClass() : field_(0) { } // constructor, additional initializers and code omitted
~MyClass() {
if (field_)
delete field_; // free the constructed object only if initialized
}
...
private:
...
field_type* field_;
next, instead of using the pointer I would access the field through the following method:
private:
...
field_type& field() {
if (!field_)
field_ = new field_type(...);
return field_;
}
I have omitted const-access semantics
The easiest way I know is similar to the technique suggested by Dietrich Epp, except it allows you to truly delay the construction of an object until a moment of your choosing.
Basically: reserve the object using malloc instead of new (thereby bypassing the constructor), then call the overloaded new operator when you truly want to construct the object via placement new.
Example:
Object *x = (Object *) malloc(sizeof(Object));
//Use the object member items here. Be careful: no constructors have been called!
//This means you can assign values to ints, structs, etc... but nested objects can wreak havoc!
//Now we want to call the constructor of the object
new(x) Object(params);
//However, you must remember to also manually call the destructor!
x.~Object();
free(x);
//Note: if you're the malloc and new calls in your development stack
//store in the same heap, you can just call delete(x) instead of the
//destructor followed by free, but the above is the correct way of
//doing it
Personally, the only time I've ever used this syntax was when I had to use a custom C-based allocator for C++ objects. As Dietrich suggests, you should question whether you really, truly must delay the constructor call. The base constructor should perform the bare minimum to get your object into a serviceable state, whilst other overloaded constructors may perform more work as needed.
I don't know if there's a formal pattern for this. In places where I've seen it, we called it "lazy", "demand" or "on demand".