I've got a class:
class Foo {
private:
Other bar;
};
and Other class:
class Other {
public:
Other(std::list<int> l, ...other parameters...);
};
Other doesn't have a default contructor and I can't add it. How can I initialize the attribute bar? I mean I need to create a list, I need to add some item and so on, so it's really difficult to use the initialization list because I need to write code to fill the list. How can I do? I think I can use a pointer instead, but I'd like to avoid dynamic allocation.
You could write a function to create the object, and use that in the initialiser list:
static Other make_bar() {
std::list<int> l;
// fill the list, do whatever else you need
return Other(l, ...);
}
Foo() : bar(make_bar()) {}
Or you could use something like boost::optional to defer initialisation without requiring dynamic allocation.
You can implement a constructor in Foo using:
Foo() : bar(std::list<int>()) {}
Related
I'll try to summarize what I need in both words and code snippets.
I have a class, Foo, which contains a data member of the type Bar:
class Foo {
public:
Bar instance_of_Bar;
Foo (int some_data)
{
// I need to initialize instance_of_Bar using one of its
// constructors here, but I need to do some processing first
// This is highly discouraged (and I prefer not to use smart pointers here)
instance_of_bar = Bar(..);
// As an unrelated question: will instance_of_Bar be default-initialized
// inside the constructor before the above assignment?
}
}
Obviously, the "correct" way to do it would be to use an initializer list like this:
Foo (int some_data) : instance_of_Bar(some_data) {}
But this is not an option because I need to do some work on some_data before passing it to the Bar constructor.
Hopefully I made myself clear. What would be the RAII way of doing it with minimal overhead and copying (The Bar class is a hefty one).
Thanks a bunch.
"But this is not an option because I need to do some work on some_data before passing it to the Bar constructor."
What about providing another function to "do some work on some_data":
Foo (int some_data) : instance_of_Bar(baz(some_data)) {}
int baz(int some_data) {
// do some work
return some_data;
}
I am creating a bunch of C structs so i can encapsulate data to be passed over a dll c interface. The structs have many members, and I want them to have defaults, so that they can be created with only a few members specified.
As I understand it, the structs need to remain c-style, so can't contain constructors. Whats the best way to create them? I was thinking a factory?
struct Foo {
static Foo make_default ();
};
A factory is overkill. You use it when you want to create instances of a given interface, but the runtime type of the implementation isn't statically known at the site of creation.
The C-Structs can still have member functions. Problems will, however, arise if you start using virtual functions as this necessitates a virtual table somewhere in the struct's memory. Normal member functions (such as a constructor) don't actually add any size to the struct. You can then pass the struct to the DLL with no problems.
I would use a constructor class:
struct Foo { ... };
class MakeFoo
{
Foo x;
public:
MakeFoo(<Required-Members>)
{
<Initalize Required Members in x>
<Initalize Members with default values in x>
}
MakeFoo& optionalMember1(T v)
{
x.optionalMember1 = v;
}
// .. for the rest option members;
operator Foo() const
{
return x;
}
};
This allows to arbitrary set members of the struct in expression:
processFoo(MakeFoo(1,2,3).optionalMember3(5));
I have an easy idea, here is how:
Make the structure, just like you normally would, and create a simple function that initializes it:
struct Foo{...};
void Default(Foo &obj) {
// ... do the initialization here
}
If you have multiple structures, you are allowed in C++ to overload the function, so you can have many functions called 'default', each initializing its own type, for example:
struct Foo { //... };
struct Bar { //... };
void Default(Foo &obj) {...}
void Default(Bar &obj) {...}
The C++ compiler will know when to call the first or the second overload based on the parameter. The & makes obj a reference to whatever parameter you give it, so any changes made to obj will be reflected to the variable you put as parameter.
Edit:
I also have an idea for how to specify some parameters, you can do it by using default parameters. This is how it works:
For example you the following function; you can specify default values for parameters like this:
void Default (Foo &obj, int number_of_something = 0, int some_other_param = 10)
{ ... }
I have a class with an array of scoped pointers to objects which do NOT have a default constructor.
The only way I've found to "initialise" them is using swap() like this:
class Bar {
Bar(char * message) {};
}
class Foo
{
boost::scoped_ptr<Bar> arr[2];
Foo()
{
arr[0].swap(boost::scoped_ptr<Bar>( new Bar("ABC") ));
arr[1].swap(boost::scoped_ptr<Bar>( new Bar("DEF") ));
};
}
This feels a little verbose and clunky. Have I missed a smarter way of doing it?
arr[0].reset(new Bar("ABC"));
arr[1].reset(new Bar("DEF"));
The biggest problem is that there is no way to initialize an array using the member initializer list here.
You might want to use a specialized pointer container like ptr_vector instead:
struct Foo {
boost::ptr_vector<Bar> bars;
X() : bars(boost::assign::ptr_list_of<Bar>("ABC")("CDE")) {}
};
What about using a typedef?
typedef boost::scoped_ptr<Bar> TBarPtr;
arr[0].swap(TBarPtr(new Bar("ABC"));
One solution: use boost::ptr_vector instead of an array.
You could also use std::vector<scoped_ptr> and fill the array using push_back. Edit: I think this won't work with scoped_ptr.
1.
I know that it is possible to initialise an array of structures in the declaration. For example:
struct BusStruct
{
string registration_number;
string route;
};
struct BusStruct BusDepot[] =
{
{ "ED3280", "70" },
{ "ED3536", "73" },
{ "FP6583", "74A" },
};
If the structure is changed into a class, like this:
class BusClass
{
protected:
string m_registration_number;
string m_route;
public:
// maybe some public functions to help initialisation
};
Is it possible to do the same as for the structure (i.e. declare and initialise an array of classes at the same time)?
2.
Am I correct to think that it is not possible to declare and initialise vector<BusStruct> or vector<BusClass> at the same time?
Is it possible to do the same as for the structure (i.e. declare and initialise an array of classes at the same time)?
Not unless you create a suitable constructor:
class BusClass
{
protected:
string m_registration_number;
string m_route;
public:
// maybe some public functions to help initialisation
// Indeed:
BusClass(string const& registration_number,
string const& route)
:m_registration_number(registration_number),
m_route(route) { }
};
Or you make all members public and omit the constructor, in which case you can use the same initialization syntax as for the struct. But i think that's not what you intended.
Am I correct to think that it is not possible to declare and initialise vector<BusStruct> or vector<BusClass> at the same time?
No it's not possible with current C++. You can however use libraries that make this possible. I recommend Boost.Assign for that. For that, however, your class has to have a constructor, and likewise your struct too - Or you need to create some kind of factory function
BusStruct make_bus(string const& registration_number,
string const& route) { ... }
If you want to keep the struct initializable with the brace enclosed initializer list in other cases.
No, you would not be able to initialize classes the way you can with structures. But you can write the class constructor inside the array declaration.
C++ has no built in way of initializing vectors, unless you want to load the vector from an array that you have initialized.
C++ natively supports two forms of vector initialization and neither is what you are looking for.
1: Every element the same as in:
vector<int> ints(4,1000); //creates a vector of 4 ints, each value is 1000.
2: Copy from an existing vector as in:
vector<int> original(3,1000); //original vector has 3 values, all equal 1000.
vector<int> otherVector(original.begin(),original.end()); //otherVector has 3 values, copied from original vector
How would you call the constructor of the following class in these three situations: Global objects, arrays of objects, and objects contained in another class/struct?
The class with the constructor (used in all three examples):
class Foo {
public:
Foo(int a) { b = a; }
private:
int b;
};
And here are my attempts at calling this constructor:
Global objects
Foo global_foo(3); // works, but I can't control when the constructor is called.
int main() {
// ...
}
Arrays of objects
int main() {
// Array on stack
Foo array_of_foos[30](3); // doesn't work
// Array on heap
Foo *pointer_to_another_array = new Foo(3) [30]; // doesn't work
}
There I'm attempting to call the constructor for all elements of the arrays, but I'd also like to know how to call it on individual elements.
Objects contained in classes/structs
class Bar {
Foo foo(3); // doesn't work
};
int main() {
Bar bar;
}
Global objects
Yours is the only way. On the other hand, try to avoid this. It’s better to use functions (or even other objects) as factories instead. That way, you can control the time of creation.
Arrays of objects
There’s no way to do this directly. Non-POD objects will always be default-constructed. std::fill is often a great help. You might also want to look into allocators and std::uninitialized_fill.
Objects contained in classes/structs
Use initialization lists in your constructor:
class Bar {
Foo foo;
Bar() : foo(3) { }
};
Static members must actually be defined outside the class:
class Bar {
static Foo foo;
};
Foo Bar::foo(3);
To correct some misconceptions about globals:
The order is well defined within a compilation unit.
It is the same as the order of definition
The order across compilation units is undefined.
The order of destruction is the EXACT opposite of creation.
Not something I recommend but: So a simple solution is to to put all globals into a single compilation unit.
Alternatively you can tweak the use of function static variables.
Basically you can have a function the returns a reference to the global you want (defining the global inside the function). It will be created on first use (and destroyed in reverse order of creation).
Foo& getGlobalA() // passed parameters can be passed to constructor
{
static Foo A;
return A;
}
Foo& getGlobalB()
{
static Foo B;
return B;
}
etc.
The Konrad reply is OK, just a puntualization about the arrays....
There is a way to create an array of items(not pointers) and here it follows:
//allocate raw memory for our array
void *rawMemory = operator new[](30 * sizeof(Foo))
// point array_of_foos to this memory so we can use it as an array of Foo
Foo *array_of_foos = static_cast<Foo *>(rawMemory);
// and now we can create the array of objects(NOT pointers to the objects)
// using the buffered new operator
for (int i = 0; i < 30; i++)
new(array_of_foos[i])Foo(3);
This approach is described here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321334876?ie=UTF8&tag=aristeia.com-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0321334876
For the global case there is no way to control when it is called. The C++ spec essentially says it will be called before main() and will be destroyed sometime afterwards. Other than that' the compiler is free to do as it pleases.
In the first array case you are creating a static array of Foo objects. By default each value in the array will be initialized with the default constructor of Foo(). There is no way with a raw C++ array to force a particular overloaded constructor to be called. You can infer a bit of control by switching to a vector instead of an array. The vector constructor has an overloaded constructor vector(size,defaultValue) which should achieve what you are looking for. But in this case you must be careful because instead of calling Foo(3) it will call Foo(const Foo& other) where other is Foo(3).
The second array case is very similar to the first case. The only real difference is where the memory is allocated (on the heap instead of the stack). It has the same limitation with regards to calling to the constructor.
The contained case is a different issue. C++ has a clear separation between the definition of a field within an object and the initialization of the field. To get this to work in C++ you'll need to change your Bar definition to the following
class Bar{
Foo foo;
Bar() : foo(3){}
};
There seems to be the general gist in this thread that you cannot initialize members of an array other than using the default constructor. One answer even creates another type, just to call another constructor. Even though you can (if the array is not part as a member of a class!):
struct foo {
foo(int a): a(a) { }
explicit foo(std::string s): s(s) { }
private:
int a;
std::string s;
};
/* global */
foo f[] = { foo("global"), foo("array") };
int main() {
/* local */
foo f[] = { 10, 20, 30, foo("a"), foo("b") };
}
The type, however, needs to be copy-able: The items given are copy-initialized into the members of the array.
For arrays as members in classes, it's the best to use containers currently:
struct bar {
/* create a vector of 100 foo's, initialized with "initial" */
bar(): f(100, foo("initial")) { }
private:
std::vector<foo> f;
};
Using the placement-new technique described by andy.gurin is an option too. But note it will complicate things. You will have to call destructors yourself. And if any constructor throws, while you are still building up the array, then you need to figure where you stopped... Altogether, if you want to have arrays in your class, and want to initialize them, use of a std::vector is a simple bet.
Construction of arrays of objects:
You can modify your original example by using default parameters.
Currently only the default constructor is supported.
This is something that is being addressed by the next version (because everybody asks this question)
C++0X initializer lists solve this problem for the arrays of objects case. See this Herb Sutter blog entry, where he describes them in detail.
In the meantime you might be able to work around the problem like so:
class Foo {
public:
Foo(int a) : b(a) {}
private:
int b;
};
class Foo_3 : public Foo {
public:
Foo_3() : Foo(3) {}
};
Foo_3 array_of_foos[30];
Here, the Foo_3 class exists solely for the purpose of calling the Foo constructor with the correct argument. You could make it a template even:
template <int i>
class Foo_n : public Foo {
public:
Foo_n() : Foo(i) {}
};
Foo_n<3> array_of_foos[30];
Again this might not do exactly what you want but may provide some food for thought.
(Also note that in your Foo class you really should get into the habit of using member initializer lists instead of assignments in the constructor, as per my example above)
I reckon there are two ways to make sure global class objects' constructors are called safely at the time of their "creation":
Declare them in a namespace and make that namespace globally accessible.
Make it a global pointer to the class object and assign a new class object to it in main(), granted code for other global objects' constructors that access the object will execute before this.
Just my two cents.