This topic is 4544 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

Recommended Posts

consider the following code:
class A {
public:
A(int i) : i(i) {
}

private:
int i;
};

int main()
{
A a;

return 0;
}


The code cannot compile because there is no default constructor of class A, but the book says that "the compiler will generate the default constructor if you don't define it" What's wrong ?

Share on other sites
What compiler are you using? Alternatively, it's pretty easy to do:

class A {public:        A() {} //HERE'S THE DEFAULT CONSTRUCTOR	A(int i) : i(i) {	}		private:	int i;};int main(){	A a; 	return 0;}

Share on other sites
That behavior is correct. A Default constructor is generated if no constructor is supplied; but you supplied a constructor, supressing the generation of the default.

Share on other sites
I'm using VC2005 Beta2 and gcc 3.3.3
Neither of them compile

Share on other sites
Again; the behavior is correct. It should not generate a default constructor.

However, it might also fail because of this: i(i). If that works, it's still extremely poor style.

Share on other sites
You supplied a constructor, so no default constructor is generated making this:

	A a;

un-compile-able

(is that even a word?)

Seems like that would work in Java, however.

Share on other sites
If you define your constructor with a default argument in the parameter list, you can use the constuctor both ways.

Share on other sites
Quote:
 "the compiler will generate the default constructor if you don't define it"

This should read "the compiler will generate the default constructor if you don't define any constructor". Otherwise you will need to specify one. Generally this is not a real problem - as you're surely aware, initializer lists are your friends.

Quote:
 Original post by DeyjaHowever, it might also fail because of this: i(i). If that works, it's still extremely poor style.

It does work (because the scoping rules are different inside and outside the brackets), and there's nothing wrong with it; I've seen it endorsed implicitly by many prominent users around here (including myself).

Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Zahlman
Quote:
 Original post by DeyjaHowever, it might also fail because of this: i(i). If that works, it's still extremely poor style.

It does work (because the scoping rules are different inside and outside the brackets), and there's nothing wrong with it; I've seen it endorsed implicitly by many prominent users around here (including myself).

Agreed, and as a fact I use this method all the time.

The variables named in an initializer list as being initialized must come from the class itself, so the outer i is allways the class member, in this case the integer listed right after the private: label. You can't do:
int unrelated;struct foo {    foo( int pie )        : unrelated( pie )    {    }}

Similarly, the i supplied in the constructor's argument list will shadow the member variable as per normal scoping rules. This means that the inner i is allways the argument. It's good style, it's defined behavior by the standard, and it's sexy good. Or something.

Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by Anonymous PosterIf you define your constructor with a default argument in the parameter list, you can use the constuctor both ways.

he/she means

struct foo {  int i;  foo(int j = 0)  : i(j) {}}

[Edited by - snk_kid on July 5, 2005 2:24:44 PM]

Share on other sites
Quote:
 I've seen it endorsed implicitly by many prominent users around here (including myself).

I haven't; nor would I call you prominent.

Quote:
 It's good style, it's defined behavior by the standard, and it's sexy good. Or something.

It's disgusting mental ambiquity and belongs with the same camp that uses 1 as a variable name. Hint for those who don't see the problem: That's a 1, not an l.

Share on other sites
The style usually recommended is i_(i).

(if you will forgive the one letter name [smile])

This is what is used in almost all C++ books that I have read, including C++ Coding Standards by Sutter and Alexandrescu.

Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Deyja
Quote:
 I've seen it endorsed implicitly by many prominent users around here (including myself).

I haven't; nor would I call you prominent.

And I suppose you are? :-).

Quote:
Quote:
 It's good style, it's defined behavior by the standard, and it's sexy good. Or something.

It's disgusting mental ambiquity and belongs with the same camp that uses 1 as a variable name. Hint for those who don't see the problem: That's a 1, not an l.

Dosn't seem ambiguous to me, mental or otherwise. You construct i from the value i, and then i == i, no mater what Is you're talking about. Instead of arguing this point with someone who obviously has no hands on experience with this practice (as evidenced by thinking that this could be causing compiler errors), I'd rather switch topics and point out:

There are instances where 1 has been used as a variable name. Usually slightly decorated, since in most languages you simply cannot use 1 in and of itself as a variable name - it won't let you. But people try to get as close as possible anyways: Boost.Lambda, part of the wonderful C++ library collection that aims and does help set existing practice to be used in molding the future of the C++ standard, uses "_1". Apache, the industry standard HTTP server, has Rule Rewriters using $1 (see example config). And how much do they really differ? After all, 1 is just a "const int" assigned to some random binary, _1 just a "boost::lambda::placeholder1_type", and$1 is simply a "string".

Quote:
 Original post by JingoThe style usually recommended is i_(i).

I see m_i( i ), i(i_), and i(new_i) used just as often, I'd recon.

[Edited by - MaulingMonkey on July 5, 2005 3:53:35 PM]

Share on other sites
Quote:

Quote:
 Original post by JingoThe style usually recommended is i_(i).

I see m_i( i ), i(i_), and i(new_i) used just as often, I'd recon.

Interesting, got any references for those styles? i(i_) in particular is very strange.

Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Jingo
Quote:

Quote:
 Original post by JingoThe style usually recommended is i_(i).

I see m_i( i ), i(i_), and i(new_i) used just as often, I'd recon.

Interesting, got any references for those styles? i(i_) in particular is very strange.

m_i( i ) is usually proported by the same people that recommend m_ prefixes for all member variables. It goes hand in hand with that naming style for obvious reasons... it's similar to your use of i_( i ), but of older vintage AFAIK.

References:
1) The standard library implementation on my computer uses _M_i, as an underscore followed by a capital letter is reserved for "the implementation".
2) Some googling seems to hint this practice stems from the MFC, which uses m_ for members and g_ for globals, etc.

My opinion is that it's an ugly hungarian notation hangover. In the few cases where it isn't obvious or implied that i is a member variable, "this->i" clearly states the fact.

i( i_ ) and i( new_i ) are similar in that they seek to decorate the less commonly used variable to distinguish between what are essentially the same values. There are many other variants, such as i( ii ), i( _i ), i( I ), etc...

No particular reference I have to bring to bear, but I think it's quite silly fluff to add when I type:

template < typename value_t >struct vector3d {    typedef value_t value_type;    value_type x,y,z;    vector3d( value_type x , value_type y , value_type z )        : x( x ) , y( y ) , z( z )    {    }};

Not only would xx, _xx, xx_, new_x, etc look rather silly as argument names in autogenerated documentation, intelesense, etc, but it'd serve no purpouse or value.

Share on other sites
Also, be careful with constructors that take only 1 parameter, especially of a basic type.

I've seen in a "commercial" game engine a Vector3 that took 1 float and initialized the whole vector with this value.

What can happen if you, by mistake, type something like :

if(myVect == 0.f) // you meant myVect.z

The compiler has the right to create a Vector, initialize it with 0.f, and then compare myVect with this new Vector.

By declaring the 1 param constructor explicit, means that you have to explicitely write something like const Vector3 ZeroVect = Vector3(0.f);

Sorry for being a bit off topic :) and hope this helps...

Eric

Share on other sites

This topic is 4544 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

Create an account

Register a new account

• Forum Statistics

• Total Topics
628686
• Total Posts
2984236

• 16
• 13
• 13
• 10
• 10