I want to create an default constructor for my object A. My problem is that one of A object`s variables is a vector array B objects.
Basically the line giving my trouble currently looks like this:
A(): name(""), bArray({B()}), n(0) {}
It must be some syntax issue.
Full constructor looks like that:
A(string n, vector<B> in, int k): name(n), bArray(in), n(k) {}
You don't need to initialize the vector in the initializer list. Member classes are already constructed using the default constructor, which, in your case, will initialize your vector to an empty one.
Since n and in will have their own default constructors, you don't need to explicitly initialize them. Just initialize k to 0, omit the other two and you should be fine.
Related
Suppose I have a C++ class set up as follows:
class Foo{
public:
struct Pair{
int x;
int y;
Pair(){ x = 2; y = 4; }
};
private:
Pair pairArr[16];
}
Without otherwise initializing the pairArr, what is the default value of the Pair structs inside it? Does C++ call the constructor (initializing it with x=2, y=4) or are the objects not created yet, leaving me with an array of "junk" objects until I initialize the indices myself?
I know if it is an array of a primitive data type, they are default initialized (if I had an array of ints, they would all be 0). However, I don't know if this behavior holds for more complex objects like my struct here.
Classes and structs are equivalent in c++, it's only the default access specifier that differs. So check Arrays and Classes, which says:
The normal array declaration style uses the default constructor for each object in the array (if the class has a default constructor)
From a practical point of view, do this in your struct:
Pair() : x(2), y(4) { std::cout << "Called\n"; }
and you will see the message being printed 16 times.
That's a usual approach (to add print messages to constructor to destructor) when you want to know what is called (and usually their order).
Tip: Use an initializer list, rather than assigning values inside the body of the constructor.
So to summarize initialization in C++ , constructor can
initialize primitive types to garbage values in memory
call default constructors on members automatically
initialize member objects with nontrivial constructors in init list
but it cannot init array properly. Ref:
C++: constructor initializer for arrays
My question is: how can I do meaningful initialization in the function body? Before entering the braces, everything has already been initialized in one way or another. The braces only contain cleaning up work, things like cout<<"This object is constructed!"
. Ref:
Use of constructor in C++
What if I want to preprocess parameter before passing it to the constructor of member object? For example:
class Foo{
public:
int x;
Foo(int y){
x = y;
}
};
class Bar{
public:
Foo foo1;
Bar(int y){
int z = superComplicatedOperation(y);
// and all other heavylifting work
foo1 = A(z);
}
};
The code above does not compile because compiler tries to init foo1 before entering the braces in constructor.
I have seen suggestions on solving this problem by providing a default constructor to Foo. So the constructor of Bar will first init foo1 to garbage value, and then assign foo1 to something meaningful in the ctor body. This is also the solution to array initialization in the quoted thread. But isn't "initializing to garbage value" an oxymoron? If the compiler wants me to do that, then it wouldn't complain about having no default ctor.
In a word, ctor is supposed to init the object in a user defined way, but I don't see any way to do a nontrivial init. Am I missing something here?
================================================================================
Clarifications: I am askingI am well aware of the Bar(int y): foo(superComplicatedOperation(y)) syntax. My question is on how to do it nicely. From a design point of view, I believe that codes in superComplicatedOperation() really should belong to the ctors. For example, say Bar takes 2 parameters (int x,int y) to initialize. We can imagine they are xy coordinates on plane. Foo also takes coordinates, but with a different reference frame. Then I need
Bar(int x,int y):foo(f1(a,b),f2(a,b))
And this kind of things quickly get ugly if ctor has a handful of params. Besides, init list looks crowded.
And if ctor body "touches" member objects, it means init list does not set members to a desired state, but rather some default zero-like states(e.g. empty vector). Therefore when calling ctor, first memory for the Bar is allocated, then members objects(subchunks of memory) go through the phases:
garbage value/uninitialized
--- init list or default member ctor --->
default "zero-like" state
--- ctor body -------------------------->
actually desired initial state
So initialization is supposed to be a two step process?
Preprocessing a parameter is fairly trivial:
class Bar
{
Foo foo;
Bar(int y) : foo(superComplicatedOperation(y)) {}
}
or you can use a C++11 delegating constructor:
class Bar
{
Foo foo;
Bar (SuperComplicatedData z) : foo(z) {}
Bar (int y) : Bar(superComplicatedOperation(y)) {}
}
What can you do in a constructor function body? Lots of things: fill containers, configure member objects, set up member object relationships, etc.
[...] constructor can
initialize primitive types to garbage values in memory
call default constructors on members automatically
This is default-initialization, which applies to every member that's not specified in the initializer list and do not have an initializer in the class definition.
initialize member objects with nontrivial constructors in init list
The member initializer list can also initialize primitive members.
but it cannot init array properly. Ref:
C++: constructor initializer for arrays
One of the answers there noted that this can now be done in C++11.
My question is: how can I do meaningful initialization in the function
body? Before entering the braces, everything has already been
initialized in one way or another. The braces only contain cleaning up
work, things like cout<<"This object is constructed!" . Ref:
Use of constructor in C++
Um...no. Frequently there's substantial logic in the constructor body proper. It's definitely not only for "cleaning up". It is true that at the time you enter the constructor body every member is initialized in some way (which may include "not initialized at all" for primitive types), but nothing says you can't assign to them or otherwise modify them. Sometimes you have to if there's some sort of circular dependencies. Sometimes the code to compute the stored value is long enough that it's far more readable inside the constructor body.
The code above does not compile because compiler tries to init foo1
before entering the braces in constructor.
I have seen suggestions on solving this problem by providing a default
constructor to Foo.
Well, you can do : foo1(A(superComplicatedOperation(y)) in your example.
So the constructor of Bar will first init foo1 to
garbage value, and then assign foo1 to something meaningful in the
ctor body. This is also the solution to array initialization in the
quoted thread. But isn't "initializing to garbage value" an oxymoron?
If the compiler wants me to do that, then it wouldn't complain about
having no default ctor.
A default ctor means that a object constructed with it is a valid object. A default ctor doesn't necessarily leave members uninitialized (or "initialized to garbage values"). Consider the default ctor for a std::vector, it had better set its internal state to something that represents an empty vector!
More fundamentally, the job of constructors (default or not) is to establish the object's invariants upon which the functions that operate on the object depend. Some objects may have no invariants, but many do (for instance, vector's internal pointer had better be either a valid pointer or null). If you have no default constructor, the compiler has no way of creating a valid object when no argument is supplied; it can't just give you something "initialized to garbage value", because it has no way of knowing whether that can in fact be a valid object of that type.
You can use an initializer list, as you should for any member variables you need to initialize.
You may prefer to initialize things to sane values and then have a function that can set the values later. It's not as clean, but if you plan to construct many objects and you can precompute the value for many of them at once it may save you some time rather than calculating the values for each object.
#include <iostream>
int superComplicatedOperation(int a)
{
return a * 10;
}
class Foo
{
public:
int x;
Foo(int y)
: x(y)
{
}
};
class Bar
{
public:
Foo foo1;
Bar(int y)
: foo1(superComplicatedOperation(y))
{
}
};
int main()
{
Bar b(7);
std::cout << b.foo1.x << "\n";
return 0;
}
class Bar {
public:
Foo foo1;
Bar(int y) : foo1(superComplicatedOperation(y)) { }
};
You can use the Constructor's initialization list for this work. It passes the values to the Ctors of the members for the first creation, this prevents the creation of a garbage object.
I guess I don't understand. I wrote code in the 1990s which has a constructor with hundreds of lines of code which does all kinds of things: opens files, instantiates dozens of objects which create linked lists and arrays based on processing file data. It certainly can initialize an array properly.
I'm self studying C++.
If you're making a Class which only has a member variable that is a collection of "X" objects, (whatever X may be) would having just a default constructor and a deconstructor be enough seems its purely dealing with a collection of objects? Thanks.
EDIT: Sorry should have been clearer. For a different example, if you have a class "Aclass" that has an int, a string and a vector of objects of another class, would you advise the "Aclass" class to have a constructor with parameters? ie Aclass(int i, string s); and do you need to have the vector in the constructor too? I'm a little confused. Thanks.
If by "collection of 'x' objects" you mean "a standard container of 'x' objects", and by "enough" you mean "enough not to worry about resource management" then yes. Same goes for any well-written container made by you or a third-party.
This is also assuming your X objects are handling their resources correctly. And that they have semantics that are compatible with the container you're putting them in.
Edit
You don't need a constructor like that if you are OK having an object filled with default values for everything. I.e. empty containers, zeroed members (or was it uninitialized? -_-), etc.
You only really need a custom constructor if your object will be in an invalid state without one or if you want some sort of custom logic to run.
You mean enough to handle memory correctly? Depends on the type X. For example, if you have a vector<string> data member, you don't have to do any manual memory management in your class.
For class you may write your own constructor, which shows, how to construct inner objects, i.e
class A{
string s;
int x;
A(string t):s(t), x(17){} // x is always 17 after construction
}
But if inner object is default-constructable, you may leave it's construction and it will be costruct by default.
A(int l):x(l){}
is equivalent to
A(int l):x(l), s(){}
(except for primitive types), that may contain trash by default
If you use default constructor of A, all inner objects will construct by default.
If by collection you mean standard library classes, you would need copy ctor and assignment operator= overloaded.
std::map and std::set would reqire an additional comparison operator< overloaded.
std::unorderd_map and std::unordered_set would need a std::hash specialized for your type.
Often you don't have to define a default constructor. The compiler will declare a default constructor implicitly if one is needed and no constructors are defined. Often it will be useful to define additional constructors (like the one you mention) in addition to the default one. In that case you need to define both:
class A
{
public:
string s;
int x;
// default constructor, no arguments
A(): x(), s() {}
// constructor
A(int i, string t): x(i), s(t) {}
}
int main()
{
A a1;
A a2(5, "text");
vector<A> ls;
return 0;
}
As pwned mentions, in order to use your class A in an STL container, e.g. vector, it is required that A has a default constructor as in the example (either user-defined or implicit).
I have a class field which is a std::vector. I know how many elements I want this vector to contain: N. How do I initialize the vector with N elements?
std::vector has a constructor declared as:
vector(size_type N, const T& x = T());
You can use it to construct the std::vector containing N copies of x. The default value for x is a value initialized T (if T is a class type with a default constructor then value initialization is default construction).
It's straightforward to initialize a std::vector data member using this constructor:
struct S {
std::vector<int> x;
S() : x(15) { }
}
class myclass {
std::vector<whatever> elements;
public:
myclass() : elements(N) {}
};
All the constructors that allow you to specify a size also invoke the element's constructor. If efficiency is paramount, you can use the reserve() member function to reserve the size. This does not actually create any elements, so it is more efficient. In most cases, though, supplying the size through the vector constructor is just fine.
Let's say I have an array of objects declared in my header. The size of the array could be very large. In my source file, I create the constructor for my class and I'd like to initialize all the objects in my array. If these objects are not being constructed with a zero-parameter constructor, I am told these need to be put in my initialization list.
My question is if I want to use a loop to initialize this possibly large array of objects, that wouldn't go in the initialization list, would it? I wouldn't want to put in my initialization list: str1("1"), str2("2"), ... , strn("n"). Could a loop to initialize all these objects go in the header or possibly in the body of the constructor?
Please let me know. I have not seen an example of this.
Thanks,
jbu
You are not able to loop in an initializer list, however there is no issue with looping in the constructor body, so long as the object type has a valid assignment operator. The objects in the array will be first initialized using their zero-parameter constructor, before the constructor body. Then in the body you will re-assign them to whatever they need to be.
Also note that if each object in the array is to be initialized using the same NON-zero parameter constructor, you can use an std::vector type, and in the initializer list, specify the default non-zero constructor to be used when allocating the internal array, ie:
// in .h
class MyClass
{
...
MyClass();
private:
vector<SomeObject> objects;
};
// in .cpp
MyClass::MyClass()
: objects(100,SomeObject(10, "somestring"))
{
}
you'll have to wait for C++0x to initialize an array in the initializer list.
struct S {
int a[3];
S(int x, int y, int z) :a{x,y,z} { /*…*/ }; // solution to old problem
};
It is possible to do like this using boost assign to declare a const vector of elements :
#include<vector>
#include<iostream>
#include<boost/foreach.hpp>
#include<boost/assign.hpp>
#include<boost/assign/list_of.hpp>
#include<boost/assign/std/vector.hpp>
using namespace std;
using namespace boost;
using namespace boost::assign;
typedef vector<int> int_vector;
const int_vector my_const_vector = list_of
(1)(2)(3)(5)(8)(13)(21)(34)(55)(89);
class myClass
{
public :
// initialization list used in the constructor
myClass(const int_vector & vec)
: m_member_vector(int_vector(vec.begin(), vec.end()))
{}
void print() const
{
BOOST_FOREACH(int i, m_member_vector)
{ cout << i << endl; }
}
private :
int_vector m_member_vector;
};
void main()
{
myClass m(my_const_vector);
m.print();
}
You can get boost from here . I realize this isn't arrays but this does solve your problem - in a way
You cannot initialize arrays in an initialization list. You have to do it in the body of the constructor.
If the thing you want to have an array of is not default-constructable, the simplest solution is to use a std::vector instead of a raw array. That way you can construct the elements as you add them within the constructor body.
But if you insist on having as a class member a raw array of objects whose type does not have a default constructor, then your only real option is to make it an array of pointers-to-Foo rather than an array of Foo.
Not a "newbie" answer, nor one I would use, but you can have a look at the boost preprocessor library, which allows you to create loops with the preprocessor.
From your question it looks like you'd like to initialize each element of the array with a different parameter (as implied by the list str1("1"), str2("2"), strn("n")). This is not possible with the current C++; And as TimW noted C++0X will allow support for this type of initialization via sequence constructors.
Having said that, it seems what you want to do is run-time initialization of these values ("1"), ("2")...("n") (Do you know these values at compile time?). If that's the case, I don't think you can use an initialization list even in C++0X. If that's not the case(compile time parameter passing for this very large array), then the preprocessor magic is the way to go.