Why does the following not work when chaining constructors:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
class cls {
public:
cls() {cls(5);} // want to resize v to 5
cls(int n) {v.resize(n);}
std::vector<int> v;
};
int main(int argc, const char* argv[]) {
cls x, y(5);
std::cout << x.v.size() << std::endl; // prints 0 <- expected 5
std::cout << y.v.size(); // prints 5
return 0;
}
Demo: http://ideone.com/30UBzS
I expected both objects to have a v of size 5. What's wrong?
Reason I want to do this is because writing separate cls() and cls(n) ctors would duplicate a lot of code.
Calling cls(5); inside of the cls::cls() constructor is not doing what you think it is doing. It is creating a temporary variable using the second cls constructor which is destroyed at ;.
You can use C++11's delegating constructors to achieve what you want:
cls() : cls(5) { }
If you don't have a compiler that supports C++11, you can pull the common initialisation out into another function, and have both constructors call that:
class cls {
public:
cls() { init(5); }
cls(int n) { init(n); }
std::vector<int> v;
private:
void init(int n) { v.resize(n); }
};
cal(5) creates a completely different object, in fact it's a temporary meaning the object will be destroyed at the end of its encapsulation expression. Or it might not be called at all due to compiler optimization.
But with that aside, the constructor call only affects the temporary and not the original object calling the constructor.
If your intention was to make the code shorter, you should create a member function that does this (assuming your compiler doesn't support C++11, in which case you could simply use the Delegating Constructor feature):
class cls
{
void resize(int n)
{
v.resize(n);
}
public:
cls() { resize(5); }
cls(int n) { resize(n); }
std::vector<int> v;
};
You should change
cls() {cls(5);}
to
cls() {v.resize(5);}
Otherwise you are creating new temporary cls in the constructor and ignoring it.
OR If you want to delegate the constructor (C++11) do it like this
cls() : cls(5) {}
// ^^ ^
// | use cls(int n)
delegated constructor are allowed only in the member initialization list of a constructor.
Here is what you need:
class cls
{
public:
cls()
:
v( 5 ){} // create v that contains 5 elements ( each initialized to 0 ) - note: this is NOT resizing
explicit cls( const int size )
:
v( size ){}
private:
std::vector<int> v;
};
Of course, if you need resizing feature on the living object, you will need a 'resize' method already mentioned in this thread.
Related
Suppose I have this struct
struct MyStruct {
static MyStruct Create(int x) {
return { x*2, x>3 };
}
MyStruct(const MyStruct& c) = delete; // no copy c'tor
private:
MyStruct(int a_, bool b_) : a(a_), b(b_) {} // private c'tor -- can't use new
const int a;
const bool b;
};
Edit: I deleted the copy constructor. This is simplified example of some classes I have in my codebase where they don't have copy c'tors.
I can get an instance on the stack like so:
int main() {
auto foo = MyStruct::Create(2);
return 0;
}
But suppose I need a pointer instead (or unique_ptr is fine), and I can't change the implementation of MyStruct, how can I do that?
You could wrap MyStruct in another class, which has a MyStruct member. Here's a minimal version of that:
class Wrapper {
public:
MyStruct ms;
Wrapper(int x) : ms(MyStruct::Create(x)) { }
};
which you can use like so:
int main() {
MyStruct::Create(2);
std::make_unique<Wrapper>(2);
}
This code will not trigger any copies nor moves - because of copy elision (see: What are copy elision and return value optimization?).
You can then add any other constructors and methods you like to such a wrapper, possibly forwarding some of the method calls to the ms member. Some might choose to make ms protected or private.
Is this what you're looking for?
auto baz = std::make_unique<MyStruct>( MyStruct::Create(2) ); // unique pointer
A comment rather than an answer, to avoid confusion for future readers.
I can get an instance on the stack like so:
int main() {
auto foo = MyStruct::Create(2);
return 0;
}
Note that this is only true as of C++17 and guaranteed copy elision, whereas the program is ill-formed is C++14, as even if the copy may be elided, the initialization of foo is copy-initialization from a temporary (in C++17: the temporary is never materialized).
One more way to do it:
struct ChildStruct : public MyStruct {
ChildStruct(int x) : MyStruct(MyStruct::Create(x))
{}
};
int main() {
MyStruct *foo1 = new ChildStruct(2);
return 0;
}
C style solution. I am not sure that this is not UB, but for simple struct with 2 integer fields it should work.
int main() {
auto foo = MyStruct::Create(2);
MyStruct *p = (MyStruct*)malloc(sizeof(MyStruct));
memcpy(p, &foo, sizeof(MyStruct));
//...
free(p);
return 0;
}
If we have a non-movable, non-copyable class with non-explicit constructor, we can return it and use as follows (in C++11):
#include <iostream>
class NonCop
{
public:
/*non explicit*/ NonCop(int a, int b) : number(a + b) {}
NonCop(const NonCop&) = delete;
int number;
};
NonCop get_non_cop()
{
return {1, 2};
}
int main()
{
NonCop &&nc = get_non_cop();
std::cout << "three: " << nc.number << std::endl;
return 0;
}
However if the constructor is explicit, it doesn't work. Is there any method of doing this in C++11/C++14 with no modifications in NonCop?
Currently I'm using workaround with deriving from NonCop with wrapper that "deexplicits" the constructor but it doesn't seem very pretty.
No, this isn't possible. There is no mechanism to call explicit constructors while returning from a function in C++11 or 14 without having an implicit move or copy (that the compiler will certainly elide).
In C++17 you can just type return NonCop(1,2); and due to "guaranteed elision" it will no longer require a move or copy constructor.
But this is C++, so yes, I can make your code work with zero additional overhead. By cheating, and returning a different type.
template<class T>
struct implicit_construct:T {
template<class...Ts>
implicit_construct(Ts&&...ts):
T(std::forward<Ts>(ts)...) // note: this is an EXPLICIT construction
{}
};
implicit_construct<NonCop> get_non_cop()
{
return {1, 2};
}
Live example.
An implicit_construct<NonCop> derives from a NonCop, so you can store the return value in a NonCop&&.
If you are writing NonCop yourself, then what I'd do is add:
struct explicit_construct_t {};
// ...
struct NonCop {
// ...
template<class...Ts>
NonCop( explicit_construct_t, Ts&&...ts ):
NonCop( std::forward<Ts>(ts)... )
{}
// ...
};
which means you can call explicit constructors by prefixing it with a explicit_construct_t to call them implicitly:
NonCop get_non_cop() {
return {explicit_construct_t{}, 1, 2};
}
Unfortunatelly, in this context you can't return the temporary object, since in a return by value expression the compiler requires that the object's copy constructor is accessible, even if this object is going to be copy elided in the end. However, you could return a std::unique_ptr instead of concrete object.
std::unique_ptr<NonCop> get_non_cop() {
return std::make_unique<NonCop>(1, 2);
}
Live Demo
Question:
Is there a difference between the following initializations?
(A) What exactly is the second one doing?
(B) Is one more efficient than the other?
int variable = 0;
int variable = int();
This question also applies to other data types such as std::string:
std::string variable = "";
std::string variable = std::string();
Background:
I basically got the idea here (the second code sample for the accepted answer) when I was trying to empty out a stringstream.
I also had to start using it when I began learning classes and realized that member variable initializations had to be done in the constructor, not just following its definition in the header. For example, initializing a vector:
// Header.h
class myClass
{
private:
std::vector<std::string> myVector;
};
// Source.cpp
myClass::myClass()
{
for (int i=0;i<5;i++)
{
myVector.push_back(std::string());
}
}
Any clarity on this will be greatly appreciated!
Edit
After reading again, I realized that you explicitely asked about the default constructor while I provided a lot of examples with a 1 parameter constructor.
For Visual Studio C++ compiler, the following code only executes the default constructor, but if the copy constructor is defined explicit, it still complains because the never called copy constructor can't be called this way.
#include <iostream>
class MyInt {
public:
MyInt() : _i(0) {
std::cout << "default" << std::endl;
}
MyInt(const MyInt& other) : _i(other._i) {
std::cout << "copy" << std::endl;
}
int _i;
};
int main() {
MyInt i = MyInt();
return i._i;
}
Original (typo fixed)
For int variables, there is no difference between the forms.
Custom classes with a 1 argument constructor also accept assignment initialization, unless the constructor is marked as explicit, then the constructor call Type varname(argument) is required and assignment produces a compiler error.
See below examples for the different variants
class MyInt1 {
public:
MyInt1(int i) : _i(i) { }
int _i;
};
class MyInt2 {
public:
explicit MyInt2(int i) : _i(i) { }
int _i;
};
class MyInt3 {
public:
explicit MyInt3(int i) : _i(i) { }
explicit MyInt3(const MyInt3& other) : _i(other._i) { }
int _i;
};
int main() {
MyInt1 i1_1(0); // int constructor called
MyInt1 i1_2 = 0; // int constructor called
MyInt2 i2_1(0); // int constructor called
MyInt2 i2_2 = 0; // int constructor explicit - ERROR!
MyInt2 i2_3 = MyInt2(0); // int constructor called
MyInt3 i3_1(0); // int constructor called
MyInt3 i3_2 = 0; // int constructor explicit - ERROR!
MyInt3 i3_3 = MyInt3(0); // int constructor called, copy constructor explicit - ERROR!
}
The main difference between something like:
int i = int(); and int i = 0;
is that using a default constructor such as int() or string(), etc., unless overloaded/overridden, will set the variable equal to NULL, while just about all other forms of instantiation and declarations of variables will require some form of value assignment and therefore will not be NULL but a specific value.
As far as my knowledge on efficiency, neither one is "better".
I know that default constructors initialize objects to their default values, but how do we view these values? If there's a variable of type int, it is supposed to be initialized to 0. But how do we actually view these default values of the constructors? Can anyone please provide a code snippet to demonstrate the same?
Unless specified otherwise, objects are constructed with their default constructor, only if one is available.
And for example ints are not initialized.
This is a common source of huge troubles and bugs, because it can have any value.
So the rule is , always initialise your variables, and for a class you do it in the initialization list
class A
{
private:
int i;
float f;
char * pC;
MyObjectType myObject;
public:
A() : // the initialisation list is after the :
i(0),
f(2.5),
pC(NULL),
myObject("parameter_for_special_constructor")
{}
}
}
In C++, int is not a class and does not have a default (or any other) constructor.
An int is not guaranteed to be initialised to 0.
If you have a class that has an int as an attribute, you should explicitly initialise it in each of the class's constructors (not just the default one).
class sample
{
private:
int x;
public:
sample()
:x(0)
{
}
sample(const int n)
:x(n)
{
}
sample(const sample& other)
:x(other.x)
{
}
// [...]
};
This way you (and users of your class) can "view" the default values.
Good coding practice: write your own constructor, so you know how it will be initialized. This is portable and guaranteed to always have the same behaviour. Your code will be easier to read and the compiler knows how to make that efficient, especially when using the special notation:
class Foo
{
public:
Foo() : i(0), j(0) {}
private:
int i;
int j;
};
AFAIK, if T is a type (not necessarily a class), T() returns a default value for the type T. Here's a small test I ran:
int main()
{
char c = char();
int i = int();
cout << "c = " << hex << (int) c << endl;
cout << "i = " << i << endl;
}
The output is:
c = 0
i = 0
Default constructors do not automatically initialise ints to 0. You can use parentheses to indicate the default value though.
struct X
{
int x;
};
struct X x1; // x1.x is not necessarily 0
struct Y
{
int y;
Y() : y()
{
}
};
struct Y y1; // y1.y will be 0
show your code
And if your int value is a member of class .
you must give it a value in your default constructor func
The default constructor is which can be invoked with 0 parameters. For example
struct X
{
X(int x = 3) //default constructor
{
//...
}
};
It initializes the object to whichever state you code it to initialize. However, if you don't define any constructor at all the compiler will attempt to generate a default constructor for you - which, in turn is equivalent to a constructor with no arguments and no body. That means that all the members of class/struct type will be initialized with their def. ctors and all the members of primitive types like int will remain uninitialized. Please note that I specialy noted that the compiler will attempt to generate a dflt ctor, because it can fail to do so, for example when one or more members of the class do not have default constructors. HTH
AS soon as you have created an object start printing the values such as ob.x.
Thats the only way u can know what default constructor has assigned to the variables.
Sorry for the basic question, but I'm having trouble finding the right thing to google.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
class C {
public:
C(int n) {
x = new int(n);
}
~C( ) {
delete x;
}
int getX() {return *x;}
private:
int* x;
};
void main( ) {
C obj1 = C(3);
obj1 = C(4);
cout << obj1.getX() << endl;
}
It looks like it does the assignment correctly, then calls the destructor on obj1 leaving x with a garbage value rather than a value of 4. If this is valid, why does it do this?
If there is a class C that has a constructor that takes an int, is this code valid?
C obj1(3);
obj1=C(4);
Assuming C has an operator=(C) (which it will by default), the code is valid. What will happen is that in the first line obj1 is constructed with 3 as a the parameter to the constructor. Then on the second line, a temporary C object is constructed with 4 as a parameter and then operator= is invoked on obj1 with that temporary object as a parameter. After that the temporary object will be destructed.
If obj1 is in an invalid state after the assignment (but not before), there likely is a problem with C's operator=.
Update: If x really needs to be a pointer you have three options:
Let the user instead of the destructor decide when the value of x should be deleted by defining a destruction method that the user needs to call explicitly. This will cause memory leaks if the user forgets to do so.
Define operator= so that it will create a copy of the integer instead of a copy of the value. If in your real code you use a pointer to something that's much bigger than an int, this might be too expensive.
Use reference counting to keep track how many instances of C hold a pointer to the same object and delete the object when its count reaches 0.
If C contains a pointer to something, you pretty much always need to implement operator=. In your case it would have this signature
class C
{
public:
void operator=(const C& rhs)
{
// For each member in rhs, copy it to ourselves
}
// Your other member variables and methods go here...
};
I do not know enough deep, subtle C++ to explain the problem you are encountering. I do know, however, that it's a lot easier to make sure a class behaves the way you expect if you follow the Rule of Three, which the code you posted violates. Basically, it states that if you define any of the following you should define all three:
Destructor
Copy constructor
Assignment operator
Note as well that the assignment operator implementation needs to correctly handle the case where an object is assigned to itself (so-called "self assignment"). The following should work correctly (untested):
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
class C {
public:
C(int n) {
x = new int(n);
}
C(const C &other): C(other.getX()) { }
~C( ) {
delete x;
}
void operator=(const C &other) {
// Just assign over x. You could reallocate if you first test
// that x != other.x (the pointers, not contents). The test is
// needed to make sure the code is self-assignment-safe.
*x = *(other.x);
}
int getX() {return *x;}
private:
int* x;
};
void main( ) {
C obj1 = C(3);
obj1 = C(4);
cout << obj1.getX() << endl;
}
Basically you are trying to re-implement a smart pointer.
This is not trivial to get correct for all situations.
Please look at the available smart pointers in the standard first.
A basic implementation (Which will fail under certain situations (copy one of the standard ones to get a better one)). But this should cover the basics:
class X
{
int* data;
public:
// Destructor obvious
~X()
{
delete data;
}
// Easy constructor.
X(int x)
:data(new int(x))
{}
// Copy constructor.
// Relatively obvious just do the same as the normal construcor.
// Get the value from the rhs (copy). Note A class is a friend of
// itself and thus you can access the private members of copy without
// having to use any accessor functions like getX()
X(X const& copy)
:data(new int(copy.x))
{}
// Assignment operator
// This is an example of the copy and swap idiom. This is probably overkill
// for this trivial example but provided here to show how it is used.
X& operator=(X const& copy)
{
X tmp(copy);
this->swap(tmp);
return this;
}
// Write a swap() operator.
// Mark it is as no-throw.
void swap(X& rhs) throws()
{
std::swap(data,rhs.data);
}
};
NEW:
What's happening is that your destructor has deallocated the memory allocated by the constructor of C(4). So the pointer you have copied over from C(4) is a dangling pointer i.e. it still points to the memory location of the deallocated memory
class C {
public:
C(int n) {
x = new int(n);
}
~C( ) {
//delete x; //Don't deallocate
}
void DeallocateX()
{
delete x;
}
int getX() {return *x;}
private:
int* x;
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
// Init with C(3)
C obj1 = C(3);
// Deallocate C(3)
obj1.DeallocateX();
// Allocate memory and store 4 with C(4) and pass the pointer over to obj1
obj1 = C(4);
// Use the value
cout << obj1.getX() << endl;
// Cleanup
obj1.DeallocateX();
return 0;
}
Be explicit about ownership of pointers! auto_ptr is great for this. Also, when creating a local don't do C obj1 = C(3) that creates two instances of C and initializes the first with the copy constructor of the second.
Heed The Guru.
class C {
public:
C(int n) : x(new int(n)) { }
int getX(){ return *x; }
C(const C& other) : x(new int(*other.x)){}
C& operator=(const C& other) { *x = *other.x; return *this; }
private:
std::auto_ptr<int> x;
};
int main() {
C obj1(3);
obj1 = C(4);
std::cout << obj1.getX() << std::endl;
}
When are you testing the value of obj1? Is it after you leave the scope?
In your example, obj1 is a stack object. That means as soon as you leave the function in which it defined, it gets cleaned up (the destructor is called). Try allocating the object on the heap:
C *obj1 = new C(3);
delete obj1;
obj1 = new C(4);