C++, Proper copy operator overloading - c++

Question

I want to redirect my copy operator to my copy constructor. Where in the latter I implement the proper logic for copying/contructing a new class based on the old avaialble class.
However, how is the proper way to do this? I "think" this one is maybe leaking memory, but I don't know how to do it without passing a pointer:
MyClass& MyClass::operator=(const MyClass& a) {
MyClass* b = new MyClass(a);
return *b;
}
Is this OK? If is not, what would be the proper way? Should I change the body of the method or the prototype?
Thank you.

Answer 1

No, an operator= should set the current object attributes to be the same as the object assigned. Your method assigns a new object on the heap, returns it as a reference (essentially leaking it) and leaves the object the operator was called on completely unchanged.
You should implement a method called, for example, CopyFrom(), which assigns all the object's attributes to match those of the passed in object (deep copying any heap allocated pointers whose lifetime is managed by MyClass) and then call THAT from both your copy constructor and your operator=.
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass( const MyClass& in )
{
CopyFrom( in );
}
MyClass& operator=( const MyClass& in )
{
CopyFrom( in );
return *this;
}
private:
void CopyFrom( const MyClass& in )
{
... copies in's attributes into self.
}
};

Answer 2

As a rule, a copy assignment operator should never create a copy. Rather, it should copy data into the existing object that it's called on (the left-hand side of the assignment). For example:
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass & operator = (const MyClass & RHS)
{
// Copy data from RHS into 'this'
m_value = RHS.m_value;
return *this;
}
private:
int m_value;
};
In this case, defining your own copy constructor isn't necessary because the default (compiler-provided) one would work fine. It's just an illustration though.
Unfortunately you can't invoke the copy constructor on the existing object. The copy-swap pattern is an alternative, but it can be less efficient.

Answer 3

Unless you're storing pointers inside of MyClass, the correct copy assignment operator is the default-generated one. If, however you need to implement one, you can write it in terms of your copy-constructor via the copy-swap idiom:
MyClass& MyClass::operator = (MyClass const& a) {
MyClass temp(a); // Call the copy constructor
using std::swap;
swap(temp, *this);
return *this;
}
The reason for the using std::swap is to enable argument-dependent lookup. If you define your own swap function for MyClass, it will be called. Else std::swap will be used as a fallback. (EDIT: You do in fact need to implement a custom swap in this case, or else you will get infinite recursion. std::swap will use the assignment operator, which will call std::swap, which will call the...)
The reason that this idiom is well-liked is because std::swap is a no-throw function. If your copy-constructor were to throw an exception, then your object you're assigning to is still in a valid state.

Answer 4

The "proper way" is to implement the assignment operator like an assignment operator: modify the contents of the object on which the operator is being called and return a reference to it.
Your current implementation will result in a memory leak, AND doesn't do any assignment (which is the main point of the assignment operator).
If you only want to write the assignment code once, and your class doesn't allocate memory in the constructor, you could do this:
MyClass::MyClass(const MyClass& a) {
*this = a;
}
MyClass& MyClass::operator=(const MyClass& a) {
if (&a == this)
return *this;
// Do assignment
return *this;
}
But I wouldn't recommend it.

Answer 5

Your code is totally wrong (sorry)! The assignment operator does
not assign anything, but allocates a pointer to a MyClass object,
creating a memory leak. My advice: avoid pointers or use some
smart pointer (shared_ptr, unique_ptr), but that is just a side note.
Maybe this is helpful:
#include <iostream>
#include <limits>
class X
{
public:
X(std::size_t n)
: m_size(n), m_data(new int[n])
{
std::cout << "Construct" << std::endl;
}
~X()
{
std::cout << "Destruct" << std::endl;
delete [] m_data;
}
// Exception safe assignment.
// Note: I am passing by value to enable copy elision and
// move semantics.
X& operator = (X x) {
std::cout << "Assign" << std::endl;
x.swap(*this);
return *this;
}
void swap(X& x) {
std::swap(m_size, x.m_size);
std::swap(m_data, x.m_data);
}
std::size_t size() const { return m_size; }
private:
std::size_t m_size;
int* m_data;
};
int main()
{
X x(1);
try {
x = X(2);
// To provoke an exception:
std::size_t n = std::numeric_limits<std::size_t>::max();
x = X(n);
}
catch(...) {
std::cout << "Exception" << std::endl;
}
std::cout << "Size: " << x.size() << std::endl;
return 0;
}

Answer 6

If you absolutely want to implement the assignment operator by copy constructor, use the following:
MyClass& MyClass::operator=(const MyClass& o)
{
this->~MyClass(); // destroy current object
new(this) MyClass(o); // use the copy constructor
return *this;
}
I cannot think of any situation in which this would be the best thing to do (other answers describe ways of implementation that are better in some situations).
Maybe (just trying to make things up here) if MyClass contains hundreds of int/float fields, and several dynamically-allocated pointers?
Duplicating them in constructor and assignment operator is too tedious and error-prone
Having a copying function that both constructor and assignment operator call - not ideal, because pointers have to be set to NULL first
The code above - will work with no additional effort!
However, having bare (non-smart) pointers in your class is discouraged. If you have such a class, then you have far worse problems than non-working assignment operator - you have to refactor first, and the problem will go away, together with all other bugs.