Does this code do what I would expect it to do? Meaning, is the handle_(curl_easy_init()) part called before or after constructor body execution?
class oauth2 {
public:
oauth2() : handle_(curl_easy_init()) {
if (handle_ == NULL) {
throw new runtime_error("curl_easy_init return null");
}
}
~oauth2() {
curl_easy_cleanup(handle_);
}
private:
CURL * handle_;
};
Thanks
is the handle_(curl_easy_init()) part called before or after
constructor body execution?
It is called before execution of the constructor body.
C++ Standard n3337 § 12.6.2.10:
Initializing bases and members
In a non-delegating constructor, initialization proceeds in the
following order:
— First, and only for the constructor of the most
derived class (1.8), 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.
— 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).
— Then, non-static
data members are initialized in the order they were declared in the
class definition (again regardless of the order of the
mem-initializers).
— Finally, the compound-statement of the
constructor body is executed.
The delegating constructor in this excerpt is defined as a constructor which calls another constructor of the same class (so it delegates the job). In such a case the former is called principal constructor while latter is called target constructor.
Yes.
Member objects are constructed before the containing object.
Related
In the following code, when the ctor of X is called will the ctor of A or B be called first? Does the order in which they are placed in the body of the class control this? If somebody can provide a snippet of text from the C++ standard that talks about this issue, that would be perfect.
class A {};
class B {};
class X
{
A a;
B b;
};
The order is the order they appear in the class definition - this is from section 12.6.2 of the C++ Standard:
5 Initialization shall proceed in the
following order:
— First, and only for
the constructor of the most derived
class as described below, virtual base
classes shall be 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 class
names in the derived class
base-specifier-list.
— Then, direct
base classes shall be initialized in
declaration order as they appear in
the base-specifier-list (regardless of
the order of the mem-initializers).
— Then, nonstatic data members shall be
initialized in the order they were
declared in the class definition
(again regardless of the order of the
mem-initializers).
— Finally, the body
of the constructor is executed. [Note:
the declaration order is mandated to
ensure that base and member subobjects
are destroyed in the reverse order of
initialization. ]
Initialization is always in the order that the class members appear in your class definition, so in your example a, then b.
There is a sequence point between the initialization of each member and you can pass a reference to a yet-to-be initialized member into the constructor of a class member but you would only be able to use it in limited ways (such as taking its address to form a pointer), other uses may well cause undefined behaviour.
Destruction of class members always happens in the reverse order of construction.
Order of initialization of bases and members is defined in 12.6.2 [class.base.init]/5.
In the following code, when the ctor of X is called will the ctor of A or B be called first? Does the order in which they are placed in the body of the class control this? If somebody can provide a snippet of text from the C++ standard that talks about this issue, that would be perfect.
class A {};
class B {};
class X
{
A a;
B b;
};
The order is the order they appear in the class definition - this is from section 12.6.2 of the C++ Standard:
5 Initialization shall proceed in the
following order:
— First, and only for
the constructor of the most derived
class as described below, virtual base
classes shall be 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 class
names in the derived class
base-specifier-list.
— Then, direct
base classes shall be initialized in
declaration order as they appear in
the base-specifier-list (regardless of
the order of the mem-initializers).
— Then, nonstatic data members shall be
initialized in the order they were
declared in the class definition
(again regardless of the order of the
mem-initializers).
— Finally, the body
of the constructor is executed. [Note:
the declaration order is mandated to
ensure that base and member subobjects
are destroyed in the reverse order of
initialization. ]
Initialization is always in the order that the class members appear in your class definition, so in your example a, then b.
There is a sequence point between the initialization of each member and you can pass a reference to a yet-to-be initialized member into the constructor of a class member but you would only be able to use it in limited ways (such as taking its address to form a pointer), other uses may well cause undefined behaviour.
Destruction of class members always happens in the reverse order of construction.
Order of initialization of bases and members is defined in 12.6.2 [class.base.init]/5.
In the following code, when the ctor of X is called will the ctor of A or B be called first? Does the order in which they are placed in the body of the class control this? If somebody can provide a snippet of text from the C++ standard that talks about this issue, that would be perfect.
class A {};
class B {};
class X
{
A a;
B b;
};
The order is the order they appear in the class definition - this is from section 12.6.2 of the C++ Standard:
5 Initialization shall proceed in the
following order:
— First, and only for
the constructor of the most derived
class as described below, virtual base
classes shall be 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 class
names in the derived class
base-specifier-list.
— Then, direct
base classes shall be initialized in
declaration order as they appear in
the base-specifier-list (regardless of
the order of the mem-initializers).
— Then, nonstatic data members shall be
initialized in the order they were
declared in the class definition
(again regardless of the order of the
mem-initializers).
— Finally, the body
of the constructor is executed. [Note:
the declaration order is mandated to
ensure that base and member subobjects
are destroyed in the reverse order of
initialization. ]
Initialization is always in the order that the class members appear in your class definition, so in your example a, then b.
There is a sequence point between the initialization of each member and you can pass a reference to a yet-to-be initialized member into the constructor of a class member but you would only be able to use it in limited ways (such as taking its address to form a pointer), other uses may well cause undefined behaviour.
Destruction of class members always happens in the reverse order of construction.
Order of initialization of bases and members is defined in 12.6.2 [class.base.init]/5.
In the following code, when the ctor of X is called will the ctor of A or B be called first? Does the order in which they are placed in the body of the class control this? If somebody can provide a snippet of text from the C++ standard that talks about this issue, that would be perfect.
class A {};
class B {};
class X
{
A a;
B b;
};
The order is the order they appear in the class definition - this is from section 12.6.2 of the C++ Standard:
5 Initialization shall proceed in the
following order:
— First, and only for
the constructor of the most derived
class as described below, virtual base
classes shall be 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 class
names in the derived class
base-specifier-list.
— Then, direct
base classes shall be initialized in
declaration order as they appear in
the base-specifier-list (regardless of
the order of the mem-initializers).
— Then, nonstatic data members shall be
initialized in the order they were
declared in the class definition
(again regardless of the order of the
mem-initializers).
— Finally, the body
of the constructor is executed. [Note:
the declaration order is mandated to
ensure that base and member subobjects
are destroyed in the reverse order of
initialization. ]
Initialization is always in the order that the class members appear in your class definition, so in your example a, then b.
There is a sequence point between the initialization of each member and you can pass a reference to a yet-to-be initialized member into the constructor of a class member but you would only be able to use it in limited ways (such as taking its address to form a pointer), other uses may well cause undefined behaviour.
Destruction of class members always happens in the reverse order of construction.
Order of initialization of bases and members is defined in 12.6.2 [class.base.init]/5.
In the following code, when the ctor of X is called will the ctor of A or B be called first? Does the order in which they are placed in the body of the class control this? If somebody can provide a snippet of text from the C++ standard that talks about this issue, that would be perfect.
class A {};
class B {};
class X
{
A a;
B b;
};
The order is the order they appear in the class definition - this is from section 12.6.2 of the C++ Standard:
5 Initialization shall proceed in the
following order:
— First, and only for
the constructor of the most derived
class as described below, virtual base
classes shall be 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 class
names in the derived class
base-specifier-list.
— Then, direct
base classes shall be initialized in
declaration order as they appear in
the base-specifier-list (regardless of
the order of the mem-initializers).
— Then, nonstatic data members shall be
initialized in the order they were
declared in the class definition
(again regardless of the order of the
mem-initializers).
— Finally, the body
of the constructor is executed. [Note:
the declaration order is mandated to
ensure that base and member subobjects
are destroyed in the reverse order of
initialization. ]
Initialization is always in the order that the class members appear in your class definition, so in your example a, then b.
There is a sequence point between the initialization of each member and you can pass a reference to a yet-to-be initialized member into the constructor of a class member but you would only be able to use it in limited ways (such as taking its address to form a pointer), other uses may well cause undefined behaviour.
Destruction of class members always happens in the reverse order of construction.
Order of initialization of bases and members is defined in 12.6.2 [class.base.init]/5.