My concern is a default constructor and its initialisation list. In a simple case it's clear, like:
class A
{
protected:
double d1;
//classB obj1; //how to initialize this one in a default constructor?
public:
A (double x = 0.0): d1(x){} //constructor
virtual ~A(void) {};
//something
}
But how to initialize the object of classB, which has a big amount of members? Or how in general initialize in default constructor some type that has a big or unknown amount of parameters to be initialized?
You could initialize obj1 in member initializer list by calling its default constructor or other constructors
class A
{
protected:
double d1;
classB obj1;
pthread_mutex_t m_mutex;
public:
A (double x = 0.0): d1(x), obj1(), m_mutex(PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER) {}
virtual ~A(void) {}
//something
}
if classB has big of members like you described, you may break the rule of class design - one class does one thing. You might want to break classB into small independent classes.
If you want to explicitly initialize an object, just add it to the constructor initializer list:
struct Foo
{
Foo(int arg) { ... }
};
struct Bar
{
Foo foo;
Bar()
: foo(123) // Initialize `foo` with an argument
{ ... }
};
If the member can be initialized by its default constructor, then it doesn't even have to be in the initialization list, because a default constructor doesn't have parameters. The default constructor will be called. Primitives don't have default constructors so they have to be in the initialization list if you want to have them initialized.
Related
in C++, what is the difference between initialization list and assigning values in a constructer rather than the way each method looks?
I mean what's the advantage of using one rather than the other and why in the given example in the slide (below) only works with initialization? (I hope if you could add some resources to it since I didn't find)
Click here to view slide: uploaded on imgur
Using initialization list in constructor is the one step process i.e. it initializes objects at the moment it’s declared. It calls copy constructor.
Whereas using assignment is the two-step process i.e. define the object and then assign it. Defining objects calls default constructor and then assignment calls assignment operator. Hence, expensive operations.
In C++, constant or reference data member variables of a class can only be initialized in the initialization list, not using assignment in constructor body.
Both constant and reference data member variables have property that they both must be initialized at the moment of declaration. So, there is only way to use initialization list in constructor, as initialization list initializes class member variables at the time of declaration whereas assignment if constructor body initializes data members after declaration.
There are situations where initialization of data members inside constructor doesn’t work and Initializer List must be used. Following are such cases.
For initialization of non-static const data members.
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class Test {
const int t;
public:
Test(int t):t(t) {} //Initializer list must be used
int getT() { return t; }
};
int main() {
Test t1(10);
cout<<t1.getT();
return 0;
}
For initialization of reference members.
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class Test {
int &t;
public:
Test(int &t):t(t) {} //Initializer list must be used
int getT() { return t; }
};
int main() {
int x = 20;
Test t1(x);
cout<<t1.getT()<<endl;
x = 30;
cout<<t1.getT()<<endl;
return 0;
}
For initialization of member objects which do not have default constructor. (In your case Array digits does not have default constructor)
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class A {
int i;
public:
A(int );
};
A::A(int arg) {
i = arg;
cout << "A's Constructor called: Value of i: " << i << endl;
}
// Class B contains object of A
class B {
A a;
public:
B(int );
};
B::B(int x):a(x) { //Initializer list must be used
cout << "B's Constructor called";
}
int main() {
B obj(10);
return 0;
}
For initialization of base class members.
When constructor’s parameter name is same as data member.
For Performance reasons.
If you don't use an initialization list, the data members of the class will be default constructed before the body of the constructor is reached:
class Foo{
private:
int bar;
public:
Foo(int _bar){//bar is default constructed here
bar = _bar; //bar is assigned a new value here
}
};
This isn't a big issue for a fundamental-type, like int, as the default constructor is not expensive. However, it can become an issue if the data member does not have a default constructor, or default construction followed by assignment is more expensive than direct construction:
//Bar does not have a default constructor, only a copy constructor
class Bar{
public:
Bar() = delete; //no default constructor
Bar(const Bar& bar); //copy constructor only
};
class Foo{
private:
Bar bar;
public:
Foo(const Bar& _bar){
//this will not compile, bar does not have a default constructor
// or a copy assignment operator
bar = _bar;
}
Foo(const Bar& _bar) : bar(_bar){//this will compile, copy constructor for bar called
}
};
Generally speaking, use the initialization list for more efficient code.
Consider I want to wrap some library code inside an object. That library needs to be set up and initialized by calling some function inside the constructor of that wrapper class.
The librarie's "objects" then diverge into creating more, different "objects" that the wrapper class wraps in form of yet another wrapper object that should be a plain member of that class.
But as far as I see it, members of classes can only be initialized or created by calling their constructor in the initalizer list of the constructor. The execution of these bits of code preceed the constructor of the actual class that does the initialization of the library and its environment, making it impossible for me to actually initialize that member object as a member and instead force me to initialize it as a pointer to the 2nd wrapper, because its constructor must be called manually within the first constructor's code.
Example:
class A {
public:
A() {
if(!wrapped_library_init()) {
exit(CRITICAL_ERROR);
}
ptr_to_some_library_metadata *a = library_function(); /*Needs to
be called after wrapped_library_init() or needs a pointer to some
wrapped object created inside this constructor */
//initialize b
}
private:
B b; //Wants to be a member but can not
};
class B {
B(ptr_to_some_library_metadata *a);
}
Member objects can only be constructed in the member initializer list. There are a few techniques which can be used to make it possible to initialize an object, though:
Use a helper [lambda] function doing the necessary extra work before return a suitable object. For example:
A()
: B([]{
if (!wrapped_library_init()) {
exit(CRITICAL_ERROR);
}
return library_function();
}()) {
}
You can delay construction by using a union with just the appropriate member. When using this technique the member needs to be explicitly destructed, for example:
class A {
union Bu { B b };
Bu b;
public:
A() {
if (!wrapped_library_init()) {
exit(CRITICAL_ERROR);
}
new(&b.b) B(library_function());
}
~A() {
b.b.~B();
}
// ...
};
I'd personally use the first approach. However, there are cases when using a union to delay construction is helpful.
Initializer lists are there to use another constructor than the default constructor.
But nothing impedes you for creating a custom function that will initialize b:
class A {
public:
A():b(init()) {
}
private:
B b; //Wants to be a member but can not
static B init()
{
if(!wrapped_library_init()) {
exit(CRITICAL_ERROR);
}
ptr_to_some_library_metadata *a = library_function(); /*Needs to
be called after wrapped_library_init() or needs a pointer to some
wrapped object created inside this constructor */
return B(a);
}
};
Wrap your library inside a class:
class LibraryWrapper
{
public:
LibraryWrapper()
{
if(!wrapped_library_init()) {
exit(CRITICAL_ERROR);
}
lib_data.reset(library_function()); /*Needs to
be called after wrapped_library_init() or needs a pointer to some
wrapped object created inside this constructor */
}
//~LibraryWrapper() {/**/}
//LibraryWrapper(const LibraryWrapper&) {/**/} // =delete; ?
//LibraryWrapper& operator=(const LibraryWrapper&) {/**/} // =delete; ?
//private: // and appropriate interface to hide internal
std::unique_ptr<ptr_to_some_library_metadata, CustomDeleter> lib_data;
};
class B {
public:
explicit B(ptr_to_some_library_metadata *a);
// ...
};
And use extra member or inheritance:
class A
{
public:
A() : b(lib.lib_data.get()) {}
private:
LibraryWrapper lib; // placed before B
B b;
};
My c++ book says this (lippman, c++ primer, fifth ed., p. 508):
The synthesized default constructor is defined as deleted if the class ... has a const member whose type does not explicitly define a default constructor and that member does not have an in-class initializer. (emphesis mine)
Why then does this code produce an error?
class Foo {
Foo() { }
};
class Bar {
private:
const Foo foo;
};
int main() {
Bar f; //error: call to implicitly-deleted default constructor of 'Bar'
return 0;
}
The rule above seems to indicate that it should not be an error, because Foo does explicitly define a default constructor. Any ideas?
To fix your error. You need to make Foo::Foo() public.
class Foo
{
public:
Foo() { }
};
Otherwise I do believe it is private.
Is this what your looking for?
The default constructor is omitted when a a class construction isn't trivial.
That in general means that either there is an explicit constructor that receives parameters (and then you can't assume that it can be constructed without those parameters)
Or if one of the members or base classes need to be initiated in construction (They themselves don't have a trivial constructor)
I think that this should work
class Foo {
public:
Foo() { }
};
class Bar {
public:
Bar() : foo() {}
private:
const Foo foo;
};
As far as I know it is not possible to call the constructor of the base class. The only way I know is this:
MyClass::MyClass(/* args */) : Base(/* args */)
{
// ...
}
but this would invoke the constructor at the beginning.
Is there any way to call it somewhere else in the constructor? Something like this:
MyClass::MyClass(/* args */)
{
// ... instructions
Base::Base(/* args */);
// ... other_instructions
}
According to this What are the rules for calling the superclass constructor? question I understand there is no way but I read here and I guessed it was possible, but if I try I get:
error: invalid use of 'class Base'.
Am I doing something wrong? Is it possible to do this some way or is there any other possible solution to this need?
Thanks!
EDIT: I understand I forgot a key point: the base class is part of a framework, and therefore it would be good not to have to modify it, if possible.
If the base class constructor takes at least one argument, you could use a helper function like this:
int DoStuffBeforeCtorAndForwardInt(int arg, Foo foo)
{
DoStuff(arg, foo);
return arg;
}
MyClass::MyClass(int arg, Foo foo)
: Base(DoStuffBeforeCtorAndForwardInt(arg, foo))
{
// ...
}
If you want to default-initialize the base class, you could use the copy-ctor to copy a default initialized base class instance:
Base DoStuffBeforeCtorAndReturnDefaultBase(int arg, Foo foo)
{
DoStuff(arg, foo);
return Base();
}
MyClass::MyClass(int arg, Foo foo)
: Base(DoStuffBeforeCtorAndReturnDefaultBase(arg, foo))
{
// ...
}
Or, if Base doesn't have to be the first base class, you could derive MyClass from a helper class:
MyClass::MyClass(/* ... */)
: DoStuffHelperClass(/* ... */),
Base(/* ... */)
{
// ...
}
All of the above require that the "stuff" you do does not depend on the object that's about to be initialized (i.e. the functions can't safely be member functions and you cannot safely pass this as an argument to them either).
That means you can do some logging or similar, but then again you could also do that after the base class has been initialized.
(EDIT except with the DoStuffHelperClass solution, you can of course have members in DoStuffHelperClass, access them and what not)
Although I have to say that I can't recall ever using/needing/wanting something like that. It's quite probable that there is another (preferable) solution for what you're trying to do.
Use the base-from-member idiom to run your code before the ctor of the "real" base class (which is Base):
struct Base {
Base(string, int);
};
struct DerivedDetail {
DerivedDetail() {
value = compute_some_value();
value += more();
value += etc();
other = even_more_code(value);
}
string value;
int other;
};
struct Derived : private DerivedDetail, Base {
Derived() : Base(value, other) {}
// In particular, note you can still use this->value and just
// ignore that it is from a base, yet this->value is still private
// within Derived.
};
This works even if you don't have actual members you want in DerivedDetail. If you give more specifics on what you must do before the Base's ctor, then I can give a better example.
The base class is always fully constructed before construction of your own class begins. If you need to make a change to the state of the base class, you have to do that explicitly after it has been constructed.
Example:
MyClass::MyClass()
{
// Implicit call to Base::Base()
int result = computeSomething();
Base::setResult(result);
// ...
}
Besides the already written solutions, you can also use a static constructor function and make the contructor of MyClass private.
class QtBase{
// ...
};
class MyClass : public QtBase{
public:
// copy ctor public
MyClass(MyClass const& other);
static MyClass Create(/*args*/){
// do what needs to be done
int idata;
float fdata;
// work with idata and fdata as if they were members of MyClass
return MyClass(idata,fdata); // finally make them members
}
static MyClass* New(/*args*/){
int idata;
float fdata;
// work with idata and fdata as if they were members of MyClass
return new MyClass(idata,fdata); // finally make them members
}
private:
// ctor private
MyClass(int a_idata, float a_fdata)
: idata(a_idata)
, fdata(a_fdata)
{}
int idata;
float fdata;
};
Now you would have to create instances of MyClass either as:
MyClass obj = MyClass::Create(/*args*/);
or
MyClass* ptr = MyClass::New(/*args*/);
no, because it will not be type safe.
consider you have: a class A and a variable A.var.
now consider B inherits from A, and uses var before A was initialized. you will get a run time error! the language wants to prevent this, thus superclass constructor must be initialized first.
No, you can't do it that way, as other have described in their previous answers.
Your only chance is composition, IOW that MyClass uses Base class as a member field:
class MyClass {
public:
/** the methods... */
private:
Base* _base;
};
so you can initialize _base later, when you have the needed info. I don't know if this can apply to your scenario, anyway.
No. It is not possible, because the order of constructor calls is strictly defined by the standard. Base class ctor has to be executed before the derive class ctor can be executed.
Let's say that I have two classes A and B.
class A
{
private:
int value;
public:
A(int v)
{
value = v;
}
};
class B
{
private:
A value;
public:
B()
{
// Here's my problem
}
}
I guess it's something basic but I don't know how to call A's constructor.
Also the compiler demands a default constructor for class A. But if A has a default constructor than wouldn't the default constructor be called whenever I declare a variable of type A. Can I still call a constructor after the default constructor has been called? Or can I declare an instance of a class and then call a constructor later?
I think this could be solved using pointers but can that be avoided ?
I know that you can do something like this in C#.
EDIT: I want to do some computations in the constructor and than initialize the classes. I don't know the values beforehand.
Let's say I'm reading the value from a file and then I initialize A accordingly.
The term you are looking for is initializer list. It is separated from the constructor body with a colon and determines how the members are initialized. Always prefer initialization to assignment when possible.
class A
{
int value;
public:
A(int value) : value(value) {}
};
class B
{
A a;
public:
B(int value) : a(value) {}
}
I want to do some computations in the constructor and than initialize the classes. I don't know the values beforehand.
Simply perform the computation in a separate function which you then call in the initializer list.
class B
{
A a;
static int some_computation()
{
return 42;
}
public:
B() : a(some_computation()) {}
}
You use an initialization list to initialize the member variables.
public:
B() : value(4) { // calls A::A(4) for value.
}
Or can I declare an instance of a class and then call a constructor later?
Yes, you can do that. Instead of (A value;) declare (A* value;), and then B's constructor will be B():value(new A(5)){}.
In the B's destructor you will have to do delete value;
I think this could be solved using pointers but can that be avoided ?
Yes. Use shared_ptr.
Try:
B() :
value(0)
{
// Here's my problem
}