C++ static list with private constructor - c++

Question

I apologize if this has been asked, I'm not sure how one best words it and couldn't really find it.
I essentially have a class that I want to maintain a map of itself, and that list should have the only instantiations of the object.
using std::unordered_map;
class MyClass
{
~MyClass() {};
MyClass() {}; // these actually contain code which operate on the classes data
static unordered_map<Uint32, MyClass> list;
public:
static const MyClass& GetObject(Uint32 key) {return list[key];};
};
When i compile my code it basically gives me a bunch of errors from the STL saying it's calling deleted functions and such, which makes sense because unordered_map probably uses the constructor and destructor, so I declared unordered_map a friend
friend class unordered_map<Uint32, MyClass>;
However there doesn't seem to be any fewer errors, which I speculate is due to classes used by unordered_map like pair, and hash. So my question is if there is an alternative to this. Should I just declare more things friends that appear to be giving errors in from the compiler, or is there another method?

Answer 1

So. You're in the mood to do something annoying. So let's do it. As AlexD says, what you're missing is a public destructor. The unordered_map needs access to this (possibly through some implementation defined inner class).
So let's do that, and let's do what you should have done in the first place, which is to make a much smaller and simpler test case:
#include <unordered_map>
class MyClass {
public:
~MyClass() {}
private:
MyClass() {}
};
int main() {
std::unordered_map<int, MyClass> x;
x.at(3);
//x[3];
}
Now that compiles fine.
Now, note that I have commented out x[3]. We can't use that. That's because if 3 doesn't exist in the map, we'd call the default constructor of MyClass, which is private. And because the compiler doesn't know at compile time if that's true, it will need to ensure that it could call the constructor.
From the comments, there's a concern that you couldn't insert any objects into this map. Well, let's add a static factory method and get rid of that concern:
#include <unordered_map>
using std::unordered_map;
class MyClass {
public:
static MyClass factory() { return MyClass(); }
~MyClass() {}
private:
MyClass() {}
int x;
};
int main() {
std::unordered_map<int, MyClass> x;
x.insert(std::make_pair(3, MyClass::factory()));
x.emplace(4, MyClass::factory());
}

Answer 2

UPDATE: T.C. kindly pointed out a couple things I'd overlooked, so this answer's done a complete about-face....
#include <iostream>
#include <unordered_map>
#include <map>
#include <cinttypes>
class MyClass
{
typedef std::unordered_map<uint32_t, MyClass> Instances;
friend Instances;
friend std::pair<uint32_t, MyClass>;
friend std::pair<const uint32_t, MyClass>;
public:
static const MyClass& getObject(uint32_t key) { return instances_[key] = 2 * key; }
~MyClass() {}
int n() const { return n_; }
private:
MyClass() : n_(-1) { }
MyClass& operator=(int n) { n_ = n; return *this; }
int n_;
static Instances instances_;
};
MyClass::Instances MyClass::instances_;
int main() {
const MyClass& m20 = MyClass::getObject(20);
const MyClass& m21 = MyClass::getObject(21);
std::cout << m20.n() << ' ' << m21.n() << '\n';
}
Above code at ideone.com.
As per comments, the list of necessary friendship isn't documented by the Standard, so could break with new compiler versions or when porting to another compiler.
Alterantively, you can store (smart) pointers in the unordered_map.