Related
Why can't I do this?
class A
{
public:
int a, b;
};
class B : public A
{
B() : A(), a(0), b(0)
{
}
};
You can't initialize a and b in B because they are not members of B. They are members of A, therefore only A can initialize them. You can make them public, then do assignment in B, but that is not a recommended option since it would destroy encapsulation. Instead, create a constructor in A to allow B (or any subclass of A) to initialize them:
class A
{
protected:
A(int a, int b) : a(a), b(b) {} // Accessible to derived classes
// Change "protected" to "public" to allow others to instantiate A.
private:
int a, b; // Keep these variables private in A
};
class B : public A
{
public:
B() : A(0, 0) // Calls A's constructor, initializing a and b in A to 0.
{
}
};
Leaving aside the fact that they are private, since a and b are members of A, they are meant to be initialized by A's constructors, not by some other class's constructors (derived or not).
Try:
class A
{
int a, b;
protected: // or public:
A(int a, int b): a(a), b(b) {}
};
class B : public A
{
B() : A(0, 0) {}
};
Somehow, no one listed the simplest way:
class A
{
public:
int a, b;
};
class B : public A
{
B()
{
a = 0;
b = 0;
}
};
You can't access base members in the initializer list, but the constructor itself, just as any other member method, may access public and protected members of the base class.
# include<stdio.h>
# include<iostream>
# include<conio.h>
using namespace std;
class Base{
public:
Base(int i, float f, double d): i(i), f(f), d(d)
{
}
virtual void Show()=0;
protected:
int i;
float f;
double d;
};
class Derived: public Base{
public:
Derived(int i, float f, double d): Base( i, f, d)
{
}
void Show()
{
cout<< "int i = "<<i<<endl<<"float f = "<<f<<endl <<"double d = "<<d<<endl;
}
};
int main(){
Base * b = new Derived(10, 1.2, 3.89);
b->Show();
return 0;
}
It's a working example in case you want to initialize the Base class data members present in the Derived class object, whereas you want to push these values interfacing via Derived class constructor call.
Why can't you do it? Because the language doesn't allow you to initializa a base class' members in the derived class' initializer list.
How can you get this done? Like this:
class A
{
public:
A(int a, int b) : a_(a), b_(b) {};
int a_, b_;
};
class B : public A
{
public:
B() : A(0,0)
{
}
};
While this is usefull in rare cases (if that was not the case, the language would've allowed it directly), take a look at the Base from Member idiom. It's not a code free solution, you'd have to add an extra layer of inheritance, but it gets the job done. To avoid boilerplate code you could use boost's implementation
Aggregate classes, like A in your example(*), must have their members public, and have no user-defined constructors. They are intialized with initializer list, e.g. A a {0,0}; or in your case B() : A({0,0}){}. The members of base aggregate class cannot be individually initialized in the constructor of the derived class.
(*) To be precise, as it was correctly mentioned, original class A is not an aggregate due to private non-static members
Why can't I do this?
class A
{
public:
int a, b;
};
class B : public A
{
B() : A(), a(0), b(0)
{
}
};
You can't initialize a and b in B because they are not members of B. They are members of A, therefore only A can initialize them. You can make them public, then do assignment in B, but that is not a recommended option since it would destroy encapsulation. Instead, create a constructor in A to allow B (or any subclass of A) to initialize them:
class A
{
protected:
A(int a, int b) : a(a), b(b) {} // Accessible to derived classes
// Change "protected" to "public" to allow others to instantiate A.
private:
int a, b; // Keep these variables private in A
};
class B : public A
{
public:
B() : A(0, 0) // Calls A's constructor, initializing a and b in A to 0.
{
}
};
Leaving aside the fact that they are private, since a and b are members of A, they are meant to be initialized by A's constructors, not by some other class's constructors (derived or not).
Try:
class A
{
int a, b;
protected: // or public:
A(int a, int b): a(a), b(b) {}
};
class B : public A
{
B() : A(0, 0) {}
};
Somehow, no one listed the simplest way:
class A
{
public:
int a, b;
};
class B : public A
{
B()
{
a = 0;
b = 0;
}
};
You can't access base members in the initializer list, but the constructor itself, just as any other member method, may access public and protected members of the base class.
# include<stdio.h>
# include<iostream>
# include<conio.h>
using namespace std;
class Base{
public:
Base(int i, float f, double d): i(i), f(f), d(d)
{
}
virtual void Show()=0;
protected:
int i;
float f;
double d;
};
class Derived: public Base{
public:
Derived(int i, float f, double d): Base( i, f, d)
{
}
void Show()
{
cout<< "int i = "<<i<<endl<<"float f = "<<f<<endl <<"double d = "<<d<<endl;
}
};
int main(){
Base * b = new Derived(10, 1.2, 3.89);
b->Show();
return 0;
}
It's a working example in case you want to initialize the Base class data members present in the Derived class object, whereas you want to push these values interfacing via Derived class constructor call.
Why can't you do it? Because the language doesn't allow you to initializa a base class' members in the derived class' initializer list.
How can you get this done? Like this:
class A
{
public:
A(int a, int b) : a_(a), b_(b) {};
int a_, b_;
};
class B : public A
{
public:
B() : A(0,0)
{
}
};
While this is usefull in rare cases (if that was not the case, the language would've allowed it directly), take a look at the Base from Member idiom. It's not a code free solution, you'd have to add an extra layer of inheritance, but it gets the job done. To avoid boilerplate code you could use boost's implementation
Aggregate classes, like A in your example(*), must have their members public, and have no user-defined constructors. They are intialized with initializer list, e.g. A a {0,0}; or in your case B() : A({0,0}){}. The members of base aggregate class cannot be individually initialized in the constructor of the derived class.
(*) To be precise, as it was correctly mentioned, original class A is not an aggregate due to private non-static members
The compiler is complaining the constructor of D is deleted because of ill forming why ?
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class A
{
int x;
public:
A(int i) { x = i; }
void print() { cout << x; }
};
class B: virtual public A
{
public:
B():A(10) { }
};
class C: virtual public A
{
public:
C():A(10) { }
};
class D: public B, public C {
};
int main()
{
D d;
d.print();
return 0;
}
Output
main.cpp:37:4: error: use of deleted function 'D::D()' D d;
^ main.cpp:32:7: note: 'D::D()' is implicitly deleted because the default definition would be ill-formed: class D: public B, public C {
^
Due to the rules for initialization of virtual base classes,
class D: public B, public C {
};
is equivalent to:
class D: public B, public C {
public:
D() : A(), B(), C() {}
};
That's why you cannot create in instance of D.
Solution 1
Change A so it has a default constructor.
class A
{
int x;
public:
A(int i = 0) { x = i; }
void print() { cout << x; }
};
Solution 2
Change D to:
class D: public B, public C {
public:
D() : A(0), B(), C() {}
};
or a simpler version,
class D: public B, public C {
public:
D() : A(0) {}
};
That's because D inherits from A indirectly using virtual. A doesn't have a parameterless constructor so a compiler-generated constructor for D can't be made.
Note: this is mostly just adding a reference to the standard, in case anybody might care (but as usual for him, #R. Sahu's answer is quite accurate).
The standard specifies ([class.base.init]/13) that:
In a non-delegating constructor, initialization proceeds in the
following order:(13.1) — First, and only for the constructor of the
most derived class (6.6.2), virtual base classes are initialized in
the order they appear on a depth-first left-to-right traversal of the
directed acyclic graph of base classes, where “left-to-right” is the
order of appearance of the base classes in the derived class
base-specifier-list.(13.2) — Then, direct base classes are
initialized in declaration order as they appear in the
base-specifier-list (regardless of the order of the mem-initializers).
So, since A is a virtual base class, it's initialized directly by the most derived class (D). Only afterward, the direct base classes are initialized--but for anything to compile, the most derived class must be able to initialize the virtual base class(es).
There is one point some might find interesting in a case like this. Let's modify your class structure just a tiny bit, so we to the necessary initialization, and (importantly) initialize with a unique value in each constructor:
#include <iostream>
class A {
int i;
public:
A(int i) : i(i) {}
void show() { std::cout << "value: " << i << "\n"; }
};
class B : virtual public A{
public:
B() : A(10) {}
};
class C : virtual public A {
public:
C() : A(20) {}
};
class D : public B, public C {
public:
D() : A(0) {}
};
int main() {
D d;
d.show();
}
In this case, what exactly happens? We have three different constructors each "thinking" it's going to initialize the A object with a different value? Which one "wins"?
The answer is that the one in the most-derived constructor (D::D) is the one that' used to initialize the virtual base class object, so that's the one that "wins". When we run the code above, it should print 0.
I have 4 classes, lets say: class A, class B, class C and class D.
Class B inherits from class A.
Class C and class D inherit from class B.
Classes A and B are abstract classes.
I would like to declare a field in class A, lets say int posision and define this field in constructors of class C and class D by assigning value of the parameter (int parameterValue) to this field.
Is there any solution to do this without duplicating line position = parameterValue in all constructors of descendant classes?
You might use inherited constructor:
struct A
{
A(int position) : position(position) {}
virtual ~A() = default;
int position;
};
struct B : public A
{
using A::A;
};
struct C : public B
{
using B::B;
};
struct D : public B
{
using B::B;
};
Demo
Put it in class B and call the super constructor at the begining of the descendent classes. Like that:
class A {
protected:
int position;
};
class B: public A {
public:
B(int parameterValue) : A() {
position = parameterValue;
}
};
class C: public B {
public:
C(int parameterValue) : B(parameterValue) {
}
};
Why can't I do this?
class A
{
public:
int a, b;
};
class B : public A
{
B() : A(), a(0), b(0)
{
}
};
You can't initialize a and b in B because they are not members of B. They are members of A, therefore only A can initialize them. You can make them public, then do assignment in B, but that is not a recommended option since it would destroy encapsulation. Instead, create a constructor in A to allow B (or any subclass of A) to initialize them:
class A
{
protected:
A(int a, int b) : a(a), b(b) {} // Accessible to derived classes
// Change "protected" to "public" to allow others to instantiate A.
private:
int a, b; // Keep these variables private in A
};
class B : public A
{
public:
B() : A(0, 0) // Calls A's constructor, initializing a and b in A to 0.
{
}
};
Leaving aside the fact that they are private, since a and b are members of A, they are meant to be initialized by A's constructors, not by some other class's constructors (derived or not).
Try:
class A
{
int a, b;
protected: // or public:
A(int a, int b): a(a), b(b) {}
};
class B : public A
{
B() : A(0, 0) {}
};
Somehow, no one listed the simplest way:
class A
{
public:
int a, b;
};
class B : public A
{
B()
{
a = 0;
b = 0;
}
};
You can't access base members in the initializer list, but the constructor itself, just as any other member method, may access public and protected members of the base class.
# include<stdio.h>
# include<iostream>
# include<conio.h>
using namespace std;
class Base{
public:
Base(int i, float f, double d): i(i), f(f), d(d)
{
}
virtual void Show()=0;
protected:
int i;
float f;
double d;
};
class Derived: public Base{
public:
Derived(int i, float f, double d): Base( i, f, d)
{
}
void Show()
{
cout<< "int i = "<<i<<endl<<"float f = "<<f<<endl <<"double d = "<<d<<endl;
}
};
int main(){
Base * b = new Derived(10, 1.2, 3.89);
b->Show();
return 0;
}
It's a working example in case you want to initialize the Base class data members present in the Derived class object, whereas you want to push these values interfacing via Derived class constructor call.
Why can't you do it? Because the language doesn't allow you to initializa a base class' members in the derived class' initializer list.
How can you get this done? Like this:
class A
{
public:
A(int a, int b) : a_(a), b_(b) {};
int a_, b_;
};
class B : public A
{
public:
B() : A(0,0)
{
}
};
While this is usefull in rare cases (if that was not the case, the language would've allowed it directly), take a look at the Base from Member idiom. It's not a code free solution, you'd have to add an extra layer of inheritance, but it gets the job done. To avoid boilerplate code you could use boost's implementation
Aggregate classes, like A in your example(*), must have their members public, and have no user-defined constructors. They are intialized with initializer list, e.g. A a {0,0}; or in your case B() : A({0,0}){}. The members of base aggregate class cannot be individually initialized in the constructor of the derived class.
(*) To be precise, as it was correctly mentioned, original class A is not an aggregate due to private non-static members