What is the concept of default constructor? - c++

help me in getting the concept of default constructor with example.
i don't know when to use default constructor in the program and when not to.
help me coming over this problem.explain it with an example for me.
when it is necessary to use it?
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class abc
{
public:
abc()
{
cout<<"hello";
}
};
int main()
{
abc a;
system("pause");
return 0;
}
so actually what is the use of default constructor and when it is necessary to use it?

A class that conforms to the concept DefaultConstrutible allows the following expressions (paragraph 17.6.3.1 of N3242):
T u; // object is default initialized
T u{}: // object is value intialized
T(); T{}; // value initialized temporary
So much for the concept. Paragraph 12.1/5 actually tells us what a default constructor is
A default constructor for a class X is a constructor of class X that
can be called without an argument. If there is no user-declared
constructor for class X, a constructor having no parameters is
implicitly declared as defaulted (8.4). An implicitly-declared default
constructor is an inline public member of its class. ...
With the introduction of deleted special member functions, the standard also defines a list of cases where no implicit default constructor is available and the distinction of trivial and non-trivial default constructors.

If you don't need to do anything as your class is instantiated. Use the default constructor, any situation else you will have to use your own constructor as the default constructor basically does nothing.
You also don't need to write any "default" constructor.
class abc {
};
int main() {
abc a; //don't want to do anything on instatiation
system("pause");
return 0;
}
class abc {
private:
int a;
public:
abc(int x) { a = x };
}
int main() {
abc a(1); //setting x to 1 on instantiation
system("pause");
return 0;
}

Constructor is a special function, without return type. Its name must be as the class\struct name. It doesn't have an actual name as a function, as Kerrek-SB pointed out.
Default constructor is the one that has no parameters, or has parameters all with a default value.
Constructor function is being called only once - when an object is instantiated
Constructor is called through a new expression or an initialization expression. It cannot be called "manually".
Useful for initializing object's fields, usually with a member initializer list.
Check this.

Default constructor is constructor with no argument and will be called on these situations:
Instancing or newing an object of a class without any constructor, like:
abc a;
abc* aptr=new abc;
Declaring an array of a class, like:
abc a_array[10];
When you have a inherited class which does not call one of base class constructors
When you have a feature in your class from another class and you don't call a definite constructor of that feature's class.
When you use some containers of standard library such as vector, for example:
vector <abc> abc_list;
In these situations you have to have a default constructor, otherwise if you do not have any constructor, the compiler will make an implicit default constructor with no operation, and if you have some constructors the compiler will show you a compile error.
If you want to do one of the above things, use a default constructor to make sure every object is being instantiated correctly.

Related

Initializing private member variables of a class

I apologize in advance because some of my verbiage may not be 100% correct.
I will have a class like this:
class ClassName {
private:
AnotherClass class2;
public:
ClassName();
~ClassName();
...
In the constructor of this class, among other things, I put the line
ClassName::ClassName() {
AnotherClass class2;
}
Which is how I thought you were supposed to initialize objects in C++, however I was noticing (through GDB) that two AnotherClass objects were being created. Once on the Constructor definition then again on my initialization line. What is the reasoning behind this? What if I wanted to use a more complicated constructor like AnotherClass(int a, int b), would it create a temporary object then create the correct one shortly after?
AnotherClass class2; creates another local object inside the constructor body, that gets destroyed at the end of the body. That is not how class members are initialized.
Class members are initialized before the constructor body in the member initializer list between the constructor signature and body, starting with a :, like so:
ClassName::ClassName() :
class2(argumentsToPassToClass2Constructor),
anotherMember(42) // just for example
{
/* constructor body, usually empty */
}
If you don't want to pass any arguments to the class2 constructor you don't have to put it in the initializer list. Then its default constructor will be called.
If you simply want to call the default constructor on all of your class members, you can (and should) omit the constructor altogether. The implicitly generated default constructor will do just what you wanted.
What you are doing in your constructor is creating another variable, local only inside the constructor.
Actually, if you do nothing, the default constructor in AnotherClass will be called for the class2 object.
If you want to be explicit, you can use a constructor initializer list:
ClassName::ClassName()
: class2()
{
}
This last method is also the way you call a specific constructor with arguments in AnotherClass, if you need to do that.
ClassName::ClassName() {
AnotherClass class2; // this will create local variable only
}
If AnotherClass will have default constructor, then it will be called for the class2 object by compiler.
If you want to call parametrized constructor then you will have do it in following way:
ClassName::ClassName() :
class2(arguments)
Why to use and How to use initializer list :
Consider the following example:
// Without Initializer List
class MyClass {
Type variable;
public:
MyClass(Type a) { // Assume that Type is an already
// declared class and it has appropriate
// constructors and operators
variable = a;
}
};
Here compiler follows following steps to create an object of type MyClass
Type’s constructor is called first for “a”.
The assignment operator of “Type” is called inside body of MyClass() constructor to assign
variable = a;
And then finally destructor of “Type” is called for “a” since it goes out of scope.
Now consider the same code with MyClass() constructor with Initializer List
// With Initializer List
class MyClass {
Type variable;
public:
MyClass(Type a):variable(a) { // Assume that Type is an already
// declared class and it has appropriate
// constructors and operators
}
};
With the Initializer List, following steps are followed by compiler:
Copy constructor of “Type” class is called to initialize : variable(a). The arguments in initializer list are used to copy construct “variable” directly.
Destructor of “Type” is called for “a” since it goes out of scope.
As we can see from this example if we use assignment inside constructor body there are three function calls: constructor + destructor + one addition assignment operator call. And if we use Initializer List there are only two function calls: copy constructor + destructor call.
This assignment penalty will be much more in “real” applications where there will be many such variables.
Few more scenarios, where you will have to use initializer list only:
Parametrized constructor of base class can only be called using Initializer List.
For initialization of reference members
For initialization of non-static const data members
You are just creating a local variable in this line. In general there are three ways of initializing private members:
Default initialization
If you do nothing on your constructor, the compiler will automatically initialize the private member by calling its default constructor (ctr without parameters)
Assigning them to a value in the ctr body
In this case you have to assign the desired value to your private member by using the assignment operator.
ClassName::ClassName()
{
class2 = AnotherClass(a, b, c); // if the class ctr has some parameters
}
By using the initialization list
In your case it will be something like:
ClassName::ClassName()
: class2(initial_value)
{
}
This is in general the best and efficient option for initializing your class private members since you avoid calling the copy constructor for the passed parameters. This is in general is not an issue unless the copy ctr contains time-consuming operations. The same apply for the option #2 in this case you may have the same issues with the assignment operator
What you did there is to create a new variable with the same name as you member,
By doing this you overshadowed your member variable.
Also, in the process your member constructor was silently called in the ClassName empty initialisation list.
you can initiate the class in two ways:
ClassName::ClassName(): class2() {}
or:
ClassName::ClassName() {
this->class2 = AnotherClass();
}
The first way is better and a must some times.
If you only use empty constructors for your members you won't see the difference, except in performance, because the compiler initialize the member by default in its initialisation list ( the part after the ":", if you don't do that, he does it silently for you... )
But if your member doesn't have an empty constructor, for example:
AnotherClass:: AnotherClass(int a, int b)
if you will try to use the second way on initialisation you will get a message like:
error: constructor for 'Initiator' must explicitly initialize the member 'class2' which does not have a default constructor

C++ a default constructor of a class calling another default constructor of another class

I have 2 classes Class A and B. I am trying to use Class B's default constructor to call class A's default constructor to intialize the values of class A in class B.
class A
{
A();
int x;
}
A::A()
{
//initialized x
x=10;
}
class B
{
B();
A aobj;
}
B::B()
{
//Calling class A's default constructor to initialize B's aobj.
aobj();
}
I received a no match call to '(aobj)'. Please help me to resolve.
Actually, you don't need to explicitly default construct members as that happens automatically unless you explicitly construct the member otherwise. In case you want to really construct a member explicitly, whether it is default construction or something else, you'll need to put your initialization into the member initializer list:
B::B()
: aobj() {
}
The expression aobj() in the body of a function tries to use the function call operator on the member aobj. Doing so may be reasonable, e.g., when aobj is of type std::function<void()>.
In the context of a statement, aobj() does not try to construct the aobj variable, rather it attempts to call it using the operator() operator overload.
Instead, try doing the construction in B::B()'s initializer list:
B::B() : aobj()
{
}
But note that this is redundant, since the default constructor for member objects will be called implicitly if omitted from the initializer list. That is, this constructor would do the exact same thing:
B::B() { }

Should we need to provide a default constructor in c++ if we use a parameter constructor?

Should we need to provide a default constructor in c++ if we use a parameter constructor?
my code is like this.
ReadConfigParams::ReadConfigParams(char *file)
It depends on how you want a client of ReadConfigParams class should instantiate an object of this class.
If the class ReadConfigParams always requires a file name (as in most of the cases), you should NOT define a default constructor because it doesn't make sense to instantiate ReadConfigParams without an associated file. This will effectively prevent a client from creating an object of this class without a given file name.
But if the class ReadConfigParams can provide some default configuration values then you SHOULD define a default constructor. This will enable a client of this class to instantiate and hence access the default values without a file reading operation.
Usually, if you don't declare a default constructor for a class, the compiler supplies one for you.
However, note that, the default constructor will only be created by the compiler if you provide no constructor whatsoever. For your example, you have provided one constructor that takes one argument, the compiler will then NOT create the default constructor for you.
Example-1:
class A
{
};
int main()
{
A a; // OK, as the compiler creates one for you
}
Example-2:
class A
{
public:
A(int){}
};
int main()
{
A a; // NOT OK, error: no appropriate default constructor available!
}
Example-3:
class A
{
public:
A(){}
A(int){}
};
int main()
{
A a; // OK, as you explicitly provide one default constructor
}
Also, according to "C++11 – ISO-IEC 14882-2011" §8.5/6:
If a program calls for the default initialization of an object of a const-qualified type T, T shall be a class type with a user-provided default constructor.
You can check out this thread for more info.
Question Should we need to provide a default constructor in c++ if we use a parameter constructor?
Answer It depends.
If you wish to create an array of objects, you must provide a default constructor.
ReadConfigParams array[10];
won't work if you have a don't have a default constructor. Similarly, you can't allocate an array of object using operator new.
ReadConfigParams* arrayPtr = new ReadConfigParams[10];
won't work either.
If you don't have any need for creating arrays, in stack or from heap, not providing a default constructor is fine.

The value returned by the copy constructor

In most of the c++ code that i have studied, there is no return statement in the copy constructor function, yet this one must return an object. I want to understand why?
The constructors doesn't return a value, they are simply called as part of the object construction, and the actual "returning an object" is the job of the compiler and its generated code.
For example, lets say you have a class Foo, then when declaring a variable of that class
Foo myFoo;
the compiler creates the object for you, and calls the appropriate constructor
The default constructor doesn't return a value. It is simply called at the object construction.
From the standard :
12.1 Constructors [class.ctor]
A default constructor for a class X is a constructor of class X that can be called without an argument. If there is no user-declared constructor for class X, a constructor having no parameters is implicitly declared as defaulted (8.4). An implicitly-declared default constructor is an inline public member of its class.
[....]
No return type (not even void) shall be specified for a constructor. A return statement in the body of a constructor shall not specify a return value. The address of a constructor shall not be taken.
Here is an example of use :
class Foo
{
public:
Foo() {} // User defined default constructor
};
Foo myFoo;

Is it true that a default constructor is synthesized for every class that does not define one?

If the class doesn't have the constructor, will the compiler make one default constructor for it ?
Programmers new to C++ often have two common misunderstandings:
That a default constructor is synthesized for every class that does
not define one
from the book Inside the C++ Object Model
I am at a loss...
This is well explained in the section from which this quote is taken. I will not paraphrase it in its entirety, but here is a short summary of the section content.
First of all, you need to understand the following terms: implicitly-declared, implicitly-defined, trivial, non-trivial and synthesized (a term that is used by Stanley Lippman, but is not used in the standard).
implicitly-declared
A constructor is implicitly-declared for a class if there is no user-declared constructor in this class. For example, this class struct T { }; does not declare any constructor, so the compiler implicitly declares a default constructor. On the other hand, this class struct T { T(int); }; declares a constructor, so the compiler will not declare an implicit default constructor. You will not be able to create an instance of T without parameters, unless you define your own default constructor.
implicitly-defined
An implicitly-declared constructor is implicitly-defined when it is used, i.e. when an instance is created without parameters. Assuming the following class struct T { };, the line T t; will trigger the definition of T::T(). Otherwise, you would have a linker error since the constructor would be declared but not defined. However, an implicitly-defined constructor does not necessarily have any code associated with it! A default constructor is synthesized (meaning that some code is created for it) by the compiler only under certain circumstances.
trivial constructor
An implicitly-declared default constructor is trivial when:
its class has no virtual functions and no virtual base classes and
its base classes have trivial constructors and
all its non-static members have trivial constructors.
In this case, the default compiler has nothing to do, so there is no code synthesized for it. For instance, in the following code
struct Trivial
{
int i;
char * pc;
};
int main()
{
Trivial t;
}
the construction of t does not involve any operations (you can see that by looking at the generated assembly: no constructor is called to construct t).
non-trivial
On the other hand, if the class does not meet the three requirements stated above, its implicitly-declared default constructor will be non-trivial, meaning that it will involve some operations that must be performed in order to respect the language semantics. In this case, the compiler will synthesize an implementation of the constructor performing these operations.
For instance, consider the following class:
struct NonTrivial
{
virtual void foo();
};
Since it has a virtual member function, its default constructor must set the virtual table pointer to the correct value (assuming the implementation use a virtual method table, of course).
Similarly, the constructor of this class
struct NonTrivial
{
std::string s;
};
must call the string default constructor, as it is not trivial. To perform these operations, the compiler generates the code for the default constructor, and calls it anytime you create an instance without parameters. You can check this by looking at the assembly corresponding to this instantiation NonTrivial n; (you should see a function call, unless the constructor has been inlined).
Summary
When you don't provide any constructor for your class, the compiler implicitly declares a default one. If you try to use it, the compiler implicitly defines it, if it can (it is not always possible, for instance when a class has a non-default-constructible member). However, this implicit definition does not imply the generation of any code. The compiler needs to generate code for the constructor (synthesize it) only if it is non-trivial, meaning that it involves certain operations needed to implement the language semantics.
N.B.
Stanley B Lippman's "Inside the C++ object model" and this answer deals with (a possible) implementation of C++, not its semantics. As a consequence, none of the above can be generalized to all compilers: as far as I know, an implementation is perfectly allowed to generate code even for a trivial constructor. From the C++ user point of view, all that matters is the "implicitly-declared/defined` aspect (and also the trivial/non-trivial distinction, as it has some implications (for instance, an object of a class with non-trivial constructor cannot be a member of a union)).
I think the misconception is:
That a default constructor is synthesized for every class that does not define one
That people think the default constructor, which accepts no arguments, will always be generated if you don't declare it yourself.
However, this is not true, because if you declare any constructor yourself, the default one will not be automatically created.
class MyClass {
public:
MyClass(int x) {}; // No default constructor will be generated now
};
This will lead to problems like when beginners expect to use MyClass like this:
MyClass mc;
Which won't work because there is no default constructor that accepts no args.
edit as OP is still a little confused.
Imagine that my MyClass above was this:
class MyClass {
};
int main() {
MyClass m;
}
That would compile, because the compiler will autogenerate the default constructor MyClass() because MyClass was used.
Now take a look at this:
#include <iostream>
class MyClass {
};
int main() {
std::cout << "exiting\n";
}
If this were the only code around, the compiler wouldn't even bother generating the default constructor, because MyClass is never used.
Now this:
#include <iostream>
class MyClass {
public:
MyClass(int x = 5) { _x = x; }
int _x;
};
int main() {
MyClass m;
std::cout << m._x;
}
The compiler doesn't generate default constructor MyClass(), because the class already has a constructor defined by me. This will work, and MyClass(int x = 5) works as your default constructor because it can accept no arguments, but it wasn't generated by the compiler.
And finally, where beginners might run into a problem:
class MyClass() {
public:
MyClass(int x) { _x = x; }
int _x;
};
int main() {
MyClass m;
}
The above will throw you an error during compilation, because MyClass m needs a default constructor (no arguments) to work, but you already declared a constructor that takes an int. The compiler will not generate a no-argument constructor in this situation either.
A default constructor is synthesized for every class that does not define one if:
The code using the class needs one & only if
There is no other constructor explicitly defined for the class by you.
All the upvoted answers thus far seem to say approximately the same thing:
A default constructor is synthesized for every class that does not have any user-defined constructor.
which is a modification of the statement in the question, which means
A default constructor is synthesized for every class that does not have a user-defined default constructor.
The difference is important, but the statement is still wrong.
A correct statement would be:
A default constructor is synthesized for every class that does not have any user-defined constructor and for which all sub-objects are default-constructible in the context of the class.
Here are some clear counter-examples to the first statement:
struct NoDefaultConstructor
{
NoDefaultConstructor(int);
};
class Surprise1
{
NoDefaultConstructor m;
} s1; // fails, no default constructor exists for Surprise1
class Surprise1 has no user-defined constructors, but no default constructor is synthesized.
It doesn't matter whether the subobject is a member or a base:
class Surprise2 : public NoDefaultConstructor
{
} s2; // fails, no default constructor exists for Surprise2
Even if all subobjects are default-constructible, the default constructor has to be accessible from the composite class:
class NonPublicConstructor
{
protected:
NonPublicConstructor();
};
class Surprise3
{
NonPublicConstructor m;
} s3; // fails, no default constructor exists for Surprise3
Yes a default constructor is always there by default if you don't define a constructor of your own (see the default constructor section here).
http://www.codeguru.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-257648.html
Quote:
The following sentense are got from the book "Inside the C++ object model" , written by Stanley B. Lippman.
There are four characteristics of a class under which the compiler
needs to synthesize a default constructor for classes that declare no
constructor at all. The Standard refers to these as implicit,
nontrivial default constructors. The synthesized constructor fulfills
only an implementation need. It does this by invoking member object or
base class default constructors or initializing the virtual function
or virtual base class mechanism for each object. Classes that do not
exhibit these characteristics and that declare no constructor at all
are said to have implicit, trivial default constructors. In practice,
these trivial default constructors are not synthesized. ...
Programmers new to C++ often have two common misunderstandings:
That a default constructor is synthesized for every class that does
not define one
That the compiler-synthesized default constructor provides explicit
default initializers for each data member declared within the class
As you have seen, neither of these is true.