Home > Gcc Error > Gcc Error Constructor Is Private

Gcc Error Constructor Is Private

Before we go through the implementation, here's what the caller code might look like, assuming you are willing to accept all the function's default parameters: File f = OpenFile("foo.txt"); That's the For example, if the expression whatever is the same type as member variable x_, the result of the whatever expression is constructed directly inside x_ -- the compiler does not make Why doesn't the Construct On First Use Idiom use a static object instead of a static pointer? to not use them, then by all means, don't use them.

private: void init(char x, int y); }; Foo::Foo(char x) { init(x, int(x) + 7); // ... } Foo::Foo(char x, int y) { init(x, y); // ... } void Foo::init(char x, int For example, if you changed caller() from Foo x = rbv(); to Foo x; x = rbv(); (note the ; after the declaration), the compiler is required to use Foo's assignment Then function f() declares a local List object called x: void f() { List x; // Local object named x (of class List) // ... } But function g() declares a How to limit a xorg installation to a single video driver? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7420296/private-constructor-error-c

All rights reserved.

Show sidebar » Sign In / Suggest an Article Register Get Started! Before going through the caveats, here is a simple example that is allowed: // Fred.h class Fred { public: static const int maximum = 42; // ... }; And, as with f.test(b) initializes a reference of type const foo& with a temporary, where the temporary was created via a user-defined conversion from bar, foo::foo(bar). Comment the declaration of the effected data members with //ORDER DEPENDENCY.

This is compiler-dependent and somewhat idealized (I'm intentionally ignoring how to handle new and overloading), but compilers typically implement Foo::Foo(int a, int b) using something like this: // Pseudo-code void Foo_ctor(Foo* Unsubstantiated In Harry Potter book 7, why didn't the Order flee Britain after Harry turned seventeen? For example, a caller of a function isn't allowed to say, "Here's the value for formal parameter xyz, and this other thing is the value for formal parameter pqr." All you Subject: Re: What's up with "Constructor is private within this context"?

Is the default constructor for Fred always Fred::Fred()? All this work could be for naught if the whatever expression and/or assignment operator causes the object to close that file and/or release that memory (e.g., if the default constructor didn't Related 18Checklist for writing copy constructor and assignment operator in C++4Any gotchas in copy ctor and assignment operator having slightly different semantics?40Why must the copy assignment operator return a reference/const reference?26The http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15029586/private-and-default-constructor-in-c11-and-gcc From: Doug Landauer Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:52:17 -0700 On Tuesday, June 19, 2001, at 01:48 PM, [email protected] wrote: OK Doug, I have a test case that you can

share|improve this answer answered Oct 13 '09 at 15:38 Patrice Bernassola 9,39133141 He did. If Dumbledore is the most powerful wizard (allegedly), why would he work at a glorified boarding school? return Foo(42, 73); // Suppose Foo has a ctor Foo::Foo(int a, int b) } Certainly the compiler is allowed to create a temporary, local Foo object, then copy-construct that temporary into These approaches work, but the following technique produces caller-code that's more obvious, easier to write, easier to read, and is generally more elegant.

For example: // Fred.h class Fred { public: // ... https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64816 For details, see here. How much is "a ladleful"? The point is that the return-by-value optimization is almost universally implemented, at least in code cases like those shown above.

Try to compile his code. I ran this code: class B { public: B( int i ) { } private: B() { } }; class D : public B { public: D(int i) : B(i) { This leads to disaster: when we exit f() the destructors for h1 and h2 are invoked and the object pointed to by h1.p and h2.p is deleted twice. in Xcode itself it was saying that the error was on that line, but in the debug console it shows that its in another file! –RandomUser Sep 14 '11 at 17:24

A technique that provides more intuitive and/or safer construction operations for users of your class. How should I interpret "English is poor" review when I used a language check service before submission? As written above, this disaster would occur roughly 50% of the time, since the two objects are declared in different source files and those source files give no hints to the I think that you have misunderstood what SO is for.

The last bullet item in section 8.5.3/p5 of the standard (i.e. If you're not sure what any of that means, take 60 seconds and compile it. However that is bad, bad, bad.

You can stop here if you don't want to genuinely understand the previous paragraph, but if you want to know the secret sauce (so you can, for example, reliably predict when

In most situations that means the Foo copy constructor needs to be public, though it needn't be public in the less common case where yourCode() is a friend of class Foo. Watch this space for updates in the near future!! I need to initialize private static objects3c++ private constructors0Xcode 3.2 breakpoints error message0XCode - compile errors remain highlighted after fixed1“Extra ';' ” compile error in Xcode C++ project0error assigning a function The example will be for the "open a file" concept.

But if there are lots of constructors, the differences between them become somewhat subtle and error prone. Those who don't understand the problem shouldn't tell others how to solve it. Description Liviu 2004-05-03 02:32:18 UTC When declaring a friend function to a templetized class, function does not have access to private methods: test.h ================== template class foo; template

So the programmer doesn't have to remember the order of the parameters, and the names are (hopefully) obvious. share|improve this answer edited Feb 22 '13 at 17:43 answered Feb 22 '13 at 17:20 Andy Prowl 81.7k12241339 Neither with line X commented? –Peregring-lk Feb 22 '13 at 17:22 Here's how: class Fred { public: Fred(int i, int j); // Assume there is no default constructor // ... }; int main() { Fred a[10] = { Fred(5,7), Fred(5,7), Fred(5,7), Fred(5,7), Warning: it's tedious to make it exception-safe: you'll need to manually destruct the elements, including in the case when an exception is thrown part-way through the loop that calls the constructors.

This is what's done in the second parameter of fopen(), for example. For example, the line Foo(x, 0); does not call Foo::Foo(char,int) on the this object. For example, the following code shows the failure: #include int f(); // forward declaration int g(); // forward declaration int x = f(); int y = g(); int f() { Because of this guideline, the constructor that follows uses s.len_ + 1u rather than len_ + 1u, even though they are otherwise equivalent.

Hope this helps... -- Doug References: >Re: What's up with "Constructor is private within this context"? (From: [email protected]) Prev by Date: Re: What's up with "Constructor is private within this context"? For example, 3*4 is a compile-time constant expression, as is a*b provided a and b are compile-time constants. But all(?) commercial-grade C++ compilers won't do that: the return statement will directly construct x itself.