Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #14370 > unrolled thread

question on no-argument constructor

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  question on no-argument constructor Oliver <fwang2@gmail.com> - 2012-02-21 05:26 -0800
    Re: question on no-argument constructor "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2012-02-21 14:32 +0100
      Re: question on no-argument constructor Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-21 05:44 -0800
    Re: question on no-argument constructor "Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2012-02-21 14:44 +0100
      Re: question on no-argument constructor Oliver <fwang2@gmail.com> - 2012-02-21 06:41 -0800
        Re: question on no-argument constructor Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-21 08:14 -0800
          Re: question on no-argument constructor Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-02-21 17:00 +0000
        Re: question on no-argument constructor Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-02-21 21:12 +0000
        Re: question on no-argument constructor Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2012-02-21 23:44 -0800

#14370 — question on no-argument constructor

hi, all -

I have a newbie question: suppose I have a user-defined class that must take a argument to properly initialize. so I have something like:

class Foo {
   explicit Foo(const string &str);
...
}

Another class define Foo as its member:

class Bar {

private:
   Foo foo;
}

Now the compiler complains that it can find the candidate constructor. So it seems I must define a no-argument constructor for Foo ... at the risk of the object can exist without being properly initialized? I must have missed something ... 

Thanks for your help

Oliver

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#14371

On 21.02.2012 14:26, Oliver wrote:
> hi, all -
>
> I have a newbie question: suppose I have a user-defined class that
> must take a argument to properly initialize. so I have something like:
>
> class Foo {
>     explicit Foo(const string&str);
> ...
> }
>
> Another class define Foo as its member:
>
> class Bar {
>
> private:
>     Foo foo;
> }
>
> Now the compiler complains that it can find the candidate constructor.
> So it seems I must define a no-argument constructor for Foo ...

Yes.


> at the  risk of the object can exist without being properly initialized?

No.


> I must  have missed something ...

Yes, but it's difficult to say what.


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14373

Subject: question on no-argument constructor

aka "default constructor"

On Feb 21, 1:32 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach
+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21.02.2012 14:26, Oliver wrote:

> > I have a newbie question: suppose I have a user-defined class that
> > must take a argument to properly initialize. so I have something like:
>
> > class Foo {
> >     explicit Foo(const string& str);
> > ...
> > }
>
> > Another class define Foo as its member:
>
> > class Bar {
>
> > private:
> >     Foo foo;
> > }
>
> > Now the compiler complains that it can find the candidate constructor.
> > So it seems I must define a no-argument constructor for Foo ...
>
> Yes.

or some other constructor? Something must call Foo's constructor.

class Bar {
public:
   Bar(): foo("hello")
   {}

private:
   Foo foo;
};


class Bar {
public:
   Bar(const std::string& boom): foo(boom)
   {}

private:
   Foo foo;
};


> > at the  risk of the object can exist without being properly initialized?
>
> No.
>
> > I must  have missed something ...
>
> Yes, but it's difficult to say what.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14374

"Oliver"  wrote in message 
news:18415058.42.1329830819543.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbne13...
>
>hi, all -
>
>I have a newbie question: suppose I have a user-defined class that must 
>take a argument to properly initialize. so I have something like:
>
>class Foo {
>   explicit Foo(const string &str);
>...
>}
>
>Another class define Foo as its member:
>
>class Bar {
>
>private:
>   Foo foo;
>}
>
>Now the compiler complains that it can find the candidate constructor. So 
>it seems I must define a no-argument constructor for Foo ... at the risk of 
>the object can exist without being properly initialized? I must have missed 
>something ...
>
>Thanks for your help
>
>Oliver

Initialize foo in the constructor of bar, e.g.:

class Bar {

private:
   Foo foo;

   explicit Bar (const string &str) : foo (str) {};
} 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14379

Thanks for all your replies. Using Bar's member initialization list to initialize Foo will work in this case.  So I guess what follows is, if Foo's init depends on Bar, and Bar's init depends on Foo, that should be considered a bad design ...

I wonder how to handle this particular design scenario I am dealing with:

class Foo maintain a open file handle; (a piece of shared info)

class Bar (or any number of other classes) contribute to write part of that file pending on the input.

Class Foo co-ordinate the write and call Bar to do the actual work.

In my current design, the class Foo has a member of Bar, but Bar needs to have the file handler that Foo has, that is why I am thinking of passing that in through constructor ... maybe this is not right way. Can someone enlighten me?

Thanks

Oliver





 











On Tuesday, February 21, 2012 8:44:55 AM UTC-5, F.Zwarts wrote:
> "Oliver"  wrote in message 
> news:18415058.42.1329830819543.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbne13...
> >
> >hi, all -
> >
> >I have a newbie question: suppose I have a user-defined class that must 
> >take a argument to properly initialize. so I have something like:
> >
> >class Foo {
> >   explicit Foo(const string &str);
> >...
> >}
> >
> >Another class define Foo as its member:
> >
> >class Bar {
> >
> >private:
> >   Foo foo;
> >}
> >
> >Now the compiler complains that it can find the candidate constructor. So 
> >it seems I must define a no-argument constructor for Foo ... at the risk of 
> >the object can exist without being properly initialized? I must have missed 
> >something ...
> >
> >Thanks for your help
> >
> >Oliver
> 
> Initialize foo in the constructor of bar, e.g.:
> 
> class Bar {
> 
> private:
>    Foo foo;
> 
>    explicit Bar (const string &str) : foo (str) {};
> }

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14382

please don't top post. if you are continuing the post you are replying
to the put your reply after it (or dispersed within it). remove
anything you aren't responding to. Often these deleteions are marked
<snip>. I've left your post unedited for top-posting.

On Feb 21, 2:41 pm, Oliver <fwa...@gmail.com> wrote:

class Bar {
public:
   Bar(): foo("hello")
   {}

private:
   Foo foo;
}

> Thanks for all your replies. Using Bar's member initialization list to initialize Foo will work in this case.  So I guess what follows is, if Foo's init depends on Bar, and Bar's init depends on Foo, that should be considered a bad design ...

Foo doesn't really depend on Bar. Consider if foo were an int. When
int was designed (late Jurassic) no one knew of your Bar.

[<deity, I hate names like Foo and Bar...]

> I wonder how to handle this particular design scenario I am dealing with:
>
> class Foo maintain a open file handle; (a piece of shared info)

class File holds a file handle of some sort (std::ifstream perhaps?)

> class Bar (or any number of other classes) contribute to write part of that file pending on the input.

various Writer classes use the File class to write to a file.

> Class Foo co-ordinate the write and call Bar to do the actual work.

oops. Lost me who is asking who to do the work? Could we scrap the
Foos and Bars and get some more concret names?

> In my current design, the class Foo has a member of Bar, but Bar needs to have the file handler that Foo has, that is why I am thinking of passing that in through constructor ... maybe this is not right way. Can someone enlighten me?

I need a clearer requirement



> On Tuesday, February 21, 2012 8:44:55 AM UTC-5, F.Zwarts wrote:
> > "Oliver"  wrote in message
> >news:18415058.42.1329830819543.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbne13...
>
> > >hi, all -
>
> > >I have a newbie question: suppose I have a user-defined class that must
> > >take a argument to properly initialize. so I have something like:
>
> > >class Foo {
> > >   explicit Foo(const string &str);
> > >...
> > >}
>
> > >Another class define Foo as its member:
>
> > >class Bar {
>
> > >private:
> > >   Foo foo;
> > >}
>
> > >Now the compiler complains that it can find the candidate constructor. So
> > >it seems I must define a no-argument constructor for Foo ... at the risk of
> > >the object can exist without being properly initialized? I must have missed
> > >something ...
>
> > >Thanks for your help
>
> > >Oliver
>
> > Initialize foo in the constructor of bar, e.g.:
>
> > class Bar {
>
> > private:
> >    Foo foo;
>
> >    explicit Bar (const string &str) : foo (str) {};
> > }- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14388

Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
> class Bar {
> public:
>   Bar(): foo("hello")
>   {}
> 
> private:
>   Foo foo;
> }

  In C++11 you can also do this:

class Bar
{
 private:
    Foo foo("hello");
};

(which effectively amounts to the same, but is less verbose.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14390

On Tue, 2012-02-21, Oliver wrote:
>
> Thanks for all your replies. Using Bar's member initialization list ...

I was going to reply with something helpful here, but you've topposted
(mentioned by someone else) and also not broken your lines - your
posting was hundreds of characters wide.  That last thing in
particular is a showstopper for me.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14402

On Feb 21, 3:41 pm, Oliver <fwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for all your replies. Using Bar's member initialization list to initialize Foo will work in this case.  So I guess what follows is, if Foo's init depends on Bar, and Bar's init depends on Foo, that should be considered a bad design ...
>
> I wonder how to handle this particular design scenario I am dealing with:
>
> class Foo maintain a open file handle; (a piece of shared info)
>
> class Bar (or any number of other classes) contribute to write part of that file pending on the input.

Does each instance of Bar and other classes operates on one Foo, or
each operates on it's own Foo? If former, then you can pass Foo by
reference to all these instances and take care of the lifetime (Foo
must outlive all instances who hold it by reference). If later, then
Bar and others can also be constructed with a file name and create a
Foo on a per-instance basis.

(In any case, I would err towards former solution, see below).

>
> Class Foo co-ordinate the write and call Bar to do the actual work.
>
> In my current design, the class Foo has a member of Bar, but Bar needs to have the file handler that Foo has, that is why I am thinking of passing that in through constructor ... maybe this is not right way. Can someone enlighten me?

In my mind, that's too complicated. In what way does Foo co-ordinate
the write? If it's merely "hold the file handle, provide a stream
(handle) to write on", then I would split it in two classes: base that
provides write operations, derived that holds the handle to write on.
Bar would only know of the base class (and hold a reference to it). In
fact, that's what all stream (file) libraries I know do, I am saying
nothing interesting here.

Goran.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web