Can I call a constructor from another constructor (do constructor chaining) in C++?
Asked Answered
E

15

1152

As a C# developer I'm used to running through constructors:

class Test {
    public Test() {
        DoSomething();
    }

    public Test(int count) : this() {
        DoSomethingWithCount(count);
    }

    public Test(int count, string name) : this(count) {
        DoSomethingWithName(name);
    }
}

Is there a way to do this in C++?

I tried calling the Class name and using the 'this' keyword, but both fail.

Eldwun answered 21/11, 2008 at 9:43 Comment(1)
Using this OR auto in the referred context would be interesting keywords for future refactoring purposes.Archimage
G
1525

C++11: Yes!

C++11 and onwards has this same feature (called delegating constructors).

The syntax is slightly different from C#:

class Foo {
public: 
  Foo(char x, int y) {}
  Foo(int y) : Foo('a', y) {}
};

C++03: No

Unfortunately, there's no way to do this in C++03, but there are two ways of simulating this:

  1. You can combine two (or more) constructors via default parameters:

    class Foo {
    public:
      Foo(char x, int y=0);  // combines two constructors (char) and (char, int)
      // ...
    };
    
  2. Use an init method to share common code:

    class Foo {
    public:
      Foo(char x);
      Foo(char x, int y);
      // ...
    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 y)
    {
      // ...
    }
    

See the C++FAQ entry for reference.

Gelignite answered 21/11, 2008 at 10:4 Comment(20)
Actually remarkably default parameters makes for a very clean way to do what we'd commonly accomplish calling this() in C#Ardent
Note that the proposed solution not using C++11 only works if the class to construct does not have inheritance nor constant fields. I did not found a way to initialize parent class and constant fields outside of the initialization list.Ambriz
Thanks for your answer. One important point to note is that such a code will compile and run. One of the answers below highlights this point. It will be great if you could link the answer below as well, because most people see the top answer only.Sima
@Ardent Using default parameters compiles them into the caller, so that's not very clean. Overloading is more code, correct, but the implementation encapsulates the defaults.Devaughn
The one downside of using init() is you can't declare a pointer or ref that is const (as in the ref/pointer is const rather the thing it points at) if you don't initialise it in the constructor().Internship
"Delegating constructors"---Visual Studio 2013 supports this Features, see: msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh567368.aspxDetruncate
@Ardent C# supports default parameters in VS2010 (C# 4.0). See here: msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd264739.aspxHeterosexual
@Gelignite how about writing: Foo:Foo(char x) { Foo(x, int(x)+7); } What would this do?Spotted
What is the execution order?Sexology
@Spotted It won't work as desired for sure (if it ever compile).Kindrakindred
Does calling the argument Ctor from the copy Ctor (in C++11) considered as "good practice" OR should one avoid this ?Wiencke
@Spotted (aside from the missing second colon) It will create a temporary Foo and then immediately discard it.Filum
I am falling for this every time. IDE is 2017, retargeted compiler is 2012 which is not able to do this, gosh.Pyrogallate
@Internship There's a hacky way around this, using the comma operator which allows you to call an init() function in the initializer list. It does, unfortunately, require another member to be initialized separately from the initializer list, which may not be desired.Michaelmichaela
Where should I place C++11 solution? In .hpp or .cpp?Lima
@val in the .cpp. It's part of the implementation details of the function, so it is not part of the declaration signature.Clairclairaudience
@JamieS: That hacky solution is generally more performant when the members in question are class types with non-trivial costs for construction and copy assignment; the approach described in this answer means classes are default constructed, then copy-assigned in init; the hacky C++03 approach and the C++11 approach improve on that by allowing you to construct the correct final version exactly once (which is of course why they work with const and references).Mcleod
@Gelignite what about new (this) Foo(...), this should work.Undrape
What about a templated constructor as another possibility?Selfconsequence
Is it possible to do some check on the parameter before deciding how to call the other constructor?Rizzo
A
152

Yes and No, depending on which version of C++.

In C++03, you can't call one constructor from another (called a delegating constructor).

This changed in C++11 (aka C++0x), which added support for the following syntax:
(example taken from Wikipedia)

class SomeType
{
  int number;
 
public:
  SomeType(int newNumber) : number(newNumber) {}
  SomeType() : SomeType(42) {}
};
Aholah answered 21/11, 2008 at 10:0 Comment(5)
But how is that different from standard default parameter syntax?Mutual
@TomášZato One thing that you can't do with default parameters is using your parameter to call the other constructor: SomeType(string const &s) { /*...*/ } SomeType(char const *pc) : SomeType(string(pc)) { /*...*/ }Aholah
@TomášZato Another difference is that with default parameters you have just one constructor that you have to make either public, protected or private, while with 2 constructors, one calling the other, you can restrict access to one of them without having to also restrict access to the other one.Janellejanene
PS: of course you could also do that with a private init function that gets called by multiple constructors, but that would not work for initialization lists.Janellejanene
It's also different from default values because you can change it without recompiling the code that uses the library. With default values, those values are "baked" into the call.Dampen
S
53

I believe you can call a constructor from a constructor. It will compile and run. I recently saw someone do this and it ran on both Windows and Linux.

It just doesn't do what you want. The inner constructor will construct a temporary local object which gets deleted once the outer constructor returns. They would have to be different constructors as well or you would create a recursive call.

Ref: https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/ctors#init-methods

Shumate answered 12/8, 2009 at 15:31 Comment(5)
Good point; most just said "no you can't". I can :). I did this switching back and was using the original ctor to decide which other to call. In debug the object could be seen in the second, everything gets initialized but goes back to default values when returned. Makes a lot of sense when you think about it.Philpott
This is not "calling a constructor". The only place you can "call a constructor" directly is in the ctor-initializer in C++11. What you're doing in this example is constructing an object, which is a different kettle of fish. Don't be misled by the fact that it looks like a function call to the constructor, because it's not one! There is in fact no way to make a function call to the constructor, which is why it is impossible to construct an instance of a class whose only constructor(s) are instantiations of a function template whose template arguments cannot be deduced.Ardolino
(That is, it is syntactically impossible to explicitly provide template arguments to a constructor.)Ardolino
There is actually one way to make a function call to a constructor - using placement new syntax. This usually isn't what you want, though. (And it doesn't do anything to allow you to explicitly provide template arguments.)Celestecelestia
using placement new would still create a new object, albeit at the same memory location. But a different object nevertheless, and it is possible to put together the code that proves this.Groundage
M
43

It is worth pointing out that you can call the constructor of a parent class in your constructor e.g.:

class A { /* ... */ };

class B : public A
{
    B() : A()
    {
        // ...
    }
};

But, no, you can't call another constructor of the same class.

Marion answered 22/11, 2008 at 6:36 Comment(2)
You are wrong. You can call a constructor of the same class. It will be determined which constructor to call using its argument list. Doing B(int x, inty) : B(x) will first call the constructor with signature B(int x).Frequentative
Yes. But I was correct in November of 2008, before C++11 was published.Marion
H
26

In C++11, a constructor can call another constructor overload:

class Foo  {
     int d;         
public:
    Foo  (int i) : d(i) {}
    Foo  () : Foo(42) {} //New to C++11
};

Additionally, members can be initialized like this as well.

class Foo  {
     int d = 5;         
public:
    Foo  (int i) : d(i) {}
};

This should eliminate the need to create the initialization helper method. And it is still recommended not calling any virtual functions in the constructors or destructors to avoid using any members that might not be initialized.

Hindustan answered 22/9, 2011 at 20:7 Comment(0)
C
17

If you want to be evil, you can use the in-place "new" operator:

class Foo() {
    Foo() { /* default constructor deliciousness */ }
    Foo(Bar myParam) {
      new (this) Foo();
      /* bar your param all night long */
    } 
};

Seems to work for me.

edit

As @ElvedinHamzagic points out, if Foo contained an object which allocated memory, that object might not be freed. This complicates things further.

A more general example:

class Foo() {
private:
  std::vector<int> Stuff;
public:
    Foo()
      : Stuff(42)
    {
      /* default constructor deliciousness */
    }

    Foo(Bar myParam)
    {
      this->~Foo();
      new (this) Foo();
      /* bar your param all night long */
    } 
};

Looks a bit less elegant, for sure. @JohnIdol's solution is much better.

Conscience answered 24/3, 2011 at 16:53 Comment(10)
Its seems it is not something advised to do as you can read at the end of 10.3 parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/ctors.html#faq-10.3Eldwun
It seems to me the only downside of this is that it adds a little overhead; new(this) tests if this==NULL and skips the constructor if it does.Improvident
This is almost certainly UB.Ardolino
Doesn't this theoretically call constructors of fields more than once? Compilers might be fixing it but you can't really trust that. Besides, although not a great idea, I might have some class members in Foo that change static/global variables in their constructor, so I would expect them to do that operation twice with that code.Quickfreeze
This is really evil. Suppose that you're allocating memory in that constructor, and deallocating it in destructor. No memory will be freed.Eunuchize
But you can still escape from disaster if you call the destructor explicitly: this->~Foo();, before new (this) Foo();Eunuchize
@ElvedinHamzagic: Good point (holgac got this as well); updated post.Conscience
@Conscience can't edit my previous comment... Anyhow, this is the new location it seems: isocpp.org/wiki/faq/dtors#placement-newEldwun
Be aware of the restrictions on replacing an object like this -- you cannot have any non-static data members which are const or references.Eichhorn
less evil, assign *this = Foo();Mcilroy
T
14

Simply put, you cannot before C++11.

C++11 introduces delegating constructors:

Delegating constructor

If the name of the class itself appears as class-or-identifier in the member initializer list, then the list must consist of that one member initializer only; such constructor is known as the delegating constructor, and the constructor selected by the only member of the initializer list is the target constructor

In this case, the target constructor is selected by overload resolution and executed first, then the control returns to the delegating constructor and its body is executed.

Delegating constructors cannot be recursive.

class Foo {
public: 
  Foo(char x, int y) {}
  Foo(int y) : Foo('a', y) {} // Foo(int) delegates to Foo(char,int)
};

Note that a delegating constructor is an all-or-nothing proposal; if a constructor delegates to another constructor, the calling constructor isn't allowed to have any other members in its initialization list. This makes sense if you think about initializing const/reference members once, and only once.

Tryck answered 28/10, 2017 at 11:53 Comment(1)
What does it means "the calling constructor isn't allowed to have any other members in its initialization list" ?Acetylene
C
11

No, in C++ you cannot call a constructor from a constructor. What you can do, as warren pointed out, is:

  • Overload the constructor, using different signatures
  • Use default values on arguments, to make a "simpler" version available

Note that in the first case, you cannot reduce code duplication by calling one constructor from another. You can of course have a separate, private/protected, method that does all the initialization, and let the constructor mainly deal with argument handling.

Cumulate answered 21/11, 2008 at 9:56 Comment(0)
C
7

Another option that has not been shown yet is to split your class into two, wrapping a lightweight interface class around your original class in order to achieve the effect you are looking for:

class Test_Base {
    public Test_Base() {
        DoSomething();
    }
};

class Test : public Test_Base {
    public Test() : Test_Base() {
    }

    public Test(int count) : Test_Base() {
        DoSomethingWithCount(count);
    }
};

This could get messy if you have many constructors that must call their "next level up" counterpart, but for a handful of constructors, it should be workable.

Cardiganshire answered 25/11, 2011 at 0:54 Comment(0)
Y
5

In Visual C++ you can also use this notation inside constructor: this->Classname::Classname(parameters of another constructor). See an example below:

class Vertex
{
 private:
  int x, y;
 public:
  Vertex(int xCoo, int yCoo): x(xCoo), y(yCoo) {}
  Vertex()
  {
   this->Vertex::Vertex(-1, -1);
  }
};

I don't know whether it works somewhere else, I only tested it in Visual C++ 2003 and 2008. You may also call several constructors this way, I suppose, just like in Java and C#.

P.S.: Frankly, I was surprised that this was not mentioned earlier.

Yawata answered 20/2, 2012 at 10:0 Comment(14)
I tried this on g++ under Ubuntu (4.4.3). It didn't work: In constructor ‘Vertex::Vertex()’: error: invalid use of ‘class Vertex’.Connieconniption
I tested it under Visual Studio 2003 .NET Architect edition - works fine.Yawata
This method is very dangerous! It produce memory leak if members are not from a POD-Type. For example std::string.Reckford
Frankly, I'm astounded and disappointed that Visual C++ allows this. It's very broken. Let's not persuade people to use this strategy.Ardolino
is this similar to placement new?Bolen
@LightnessRacesinOrbit: It seems that it should create a temporary object, same as Vertex(-1, -1). The only difference is use of qualified lookup instead of unqualified, but it still names the same class.Eichhorn
@BenVoigt: What's with the this-> though?Ardolino
@LightnessRacesinOrbit: C++ allows looking up static class members using member access syntax (as an alternative to the usual classname+scope operator). Can't remember whether that applies to nested types and typedefs as well. The "injected class-name" rule means that the class's name can be found as if it were a member name.Eichhorn
@BenVoigt: The constructor is not a static class member; it is a "special member function". This syntax is utter nonsense.Ardolino
@LightnessRacesinOrbit: What's named is not the constructor (it has no name), but the type itself. Via injected class name.Eichhorn
@BenVoigt: Then we're back to this-> making no sense. This is not valid C++, period.Ardolino
However, I think nested types can't be found via member access, or else I would have been writing c.iterator it = c.begin() instead of std::vector<Blah>::iterator it = c.begin();Eichhorn
@BenVoigt: Yes, exactly.Ardolino
Which is sad, because this->typename T varname; would be very convenient for accessing a dependent name in CRTP.Eichhorn
K
3

This approach may work for some kinds of classes (when the assignment operator behaves 'well'):

Foo::Foo()
{
    // do what every Foo is needing
    ...
}

Foo::Foo(char x)
{
    *this = Foo();

    // do the special things for a Foo with char
    ...
}
Kaiak answered 10/11, 2015 at 21:18 Comment(0)
I
2

I would propose the use of a private friend method which implements the application logic of the constructor and is the called by the various constructors. Here is an example:

Assume we have a class called StreamArrayReader with some private fields:

private:
    istream * in;
      // More private fields

And we want to define the two constructors:

public:
    StreamArrayReader(istream * in_stream);
    StreamArrayReader(char * filepath);
    // More constructors...

Where the second one simply makes use of the first one (and of course we don't want to duplicate the implementation of the former). Ideally, one would like to do something like:

StreamArrayReader::StreamArrayReader(istream * in_stream){
    // Implementation
}

StreamArrayReader::StreamArrayReader(char * filepath) {
    ifstream instream;
    instream.open(filepath);
    StreamArrayReader(&instream);
    instream.close();
}

However, this is not allowed in C++. For that reason, we may define a private friend method as follows which implements what the first constructor is supposed to do:

private:
  friend void init_stream_array_reader(StreamArrayReader *o, istream * is);

Now this method (because it's a friend) has access to the private fields of o. Then, the first constructor becomes:

StreamArrayReader::StreamArrayReader(istream * is) {
    init_stream_array_reader(this, is);
}

Note that this does not create multiple copies for the newly created copies. The second one becomes:

StreamArrayReader::StreamArrayReader(char * filepath) {
    ifstream instream;
    instream.open(filepath);
    init_stream_array_reader(this, &instream);
    instream.close();
}

That is, instead of having one constructor calling another, both call a private friend!

Imagine answered 2/11, 2014 at 0:19 Comment(1)
It seems to me that using a friend method has no advantage over a normal private method. Why would you do that?Bolen
O
0

If I understand your question correctly, you're asking if you can call multiple constructors in C++?

If that's what you're looking for, then no - that is not possible.

You certainly can have multiple constructors, each with unique argument signatures, and then call the one you want when you instantiate a new object.

You can even have one constructor with defaulted arguments on the end.

But you may not have multiple constructors, and then call each of them separately.

Ossa answered 21/11, 2008 at 9:49 Comment(1)
He's asking if one constructor can call another one. Java and C# allow this.Ambiversion
B
0

When calling a constructor it actually allocates memory, either from the stack or from the heap. So calling a constructor in another constructor creates a local copy. So we are modifying another object, not the one we are focusing on.

Bikales answered 6/1, 2014 at 10:52 Comment(2)
You cannot "call a constructor"; please see my comments on ohlemacher's answer. However you are, essentially, correct.Ardolino
Constructor is just an initializer, so creating common initializer outside a constructor is an old-fassion method. Memory is allocated before the constructor is ever called, commonly when operator new is called or malloc...Eunuchize
C
-1

Would be more easy to test, than decide :) Try this:

#include <iostream>

class A {
public:
    A( int a) : m_a(a) {
        std::cout << "A::Ctor" << std::endl;    
    }
    ~A() {
        std::cout << "A::dtor" << std::endl;    
    }
public:
    int m_a;
};

class B : public A {
public:
    B( int a, int b) : m_b(b), A(a) {}
public:
    int m_b;
};

int main() {
    B b(9, 6);
    std::cout << "Test constructor delegation a = " << b.m_a << "; b = " << b.m_b << std::endl;    
    return 0;
}

and compile it with 98 std: g++ main.cpp -std=c++98 -o test_1

you will see:

A::Ctor
Test constructor delegation a = 9; b = 6
A::dtor

so :)

Counterproductive answered 9/9, 2016 at 10:38 Comment(1)
This was not the initial question, he is not asking about calling a base class constructor, but another constructor in the same class.Melar

© 2022 - 2024 — McMap. All rights reserved.