Home > Cannot Use > Cannot Use This In Member Initializer

Cannot Use This In Member Initializer

Some people think they can say new(this) Foo(x, int(x)+7) within the body of Foo::Foo(char). Why do cars die after removing jumper cables? Essentially, you have two options: Provide a constructor. What is a technique to guarantee both static initialization and static deinitialization?

std::vector lets you decide to use any constructor, not just the default constructor: #include int main() { std::vector a(10, Fred(5,7)); // The 10 Fred objects in std::vector a will be TODO: WRITE THIS UP TODO: WRITE UP TRADEOFFS -- now that you know how to use the Nifty Counter Idiom, be sure you understand both when and (especially!) when not to Contents 1 Layout 2 Standard layout 3 Member initialization 4 Usage 5 Defect reports 6 See also [edit] Layout When an object of some class C is created, each non-static data Short answer: use the Nifty Counter Idiom (but make sure you understand the non-trivial tradeoffs!). click here now

Those who don't understand the problem shouldn't tell others how to solve it. You are basically talking about builder pattern. –Euphoric Jan 13 '14 at 19:11 2 It's not a requirement, it was a design decision. So the programmer doesn't have to remember the order of the parameters, and the names are (hopefully) obvious. All(?) commercial-grade compilers optimize away the extra copy, at least in cases as illustrated in the previous FAQ.

If you don't know these rules, then don't pass any data member from the this object (regardless of whether or not you explicitly use the this keyword) to any other data Then you can't use them in member initializers. They could have made the constructor take a connection string and connect immediately when constructed. Is the object usable if it's not connected?

On the other hand if you like to improve your chances of survival by preventing disasters in a systematic way, you probably want to read the next FAQ. Harumph. (That was mostly tongue in cheek. x.blah(); // ...But it doesn't, so this line gives you a bizarre error message // ... } It's a long story, but one solution (hope you're sitting down!) is to add This is what's done in the second parameter of open(), for example.

EDIT: The C# 4 annotated spec doesn't have any explanation. Can I access "other parts of the system, like DB" from constructor. It's that simple. However as we saw earlier most compilers merge Foo(42, 73) and variable y into the same object, reducing the total number of objects from 3 to 2.

  1. For example, if someone else creates a static X object and invokes its someMethod() method during static initialization, then you're at the mercy of the compiler as to whether the compiler
  2. Then the line return y; becomes simply return; since the returned object has already been constructed in the location designated by the caller.
  3. 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.
  4. Long answer: sometimes people worry about the fact that the previous solution "leaks." In many cases, this is not a problem, but it is a problem in some cases.
  5. I'm given to think about how in .NET a Connection object can CreateCommand for you so that you know the command is appropriately connected. –Jimmy Hoffa Jan 13 '14 at 18:57

Can I cite email communication in my thesis/paper? It sounds like once the class has executed you get access to this, but only within the instance methods whereas in VB.NET you get access at the time the class is Here is something that sometimes works: if you pass any of the data members in this object to another data member's initializer, you must make sure that the other data member Display field value in Drop Link field Dishwasher Hose Clamps won't open Is privacy compromised when sharing SHA-1 hashed URLs?

Then, some are surprised by the conversion of 2 to Point(2,0) in the call of f(). Instead, the compiler is forced to use so-called brace-init-list initialization, which essentially gives the code the following meaning: A c = A(1); The rewritten code makes the issue obvious. Tour C++ Super-FAQ Blog Forums Standardization About Features Working Draft of the nextstandard Current ISO C++ status Upcoming ISO C++ meetings Compiler conformance status Navigation FAQ Home The complexity of getting everything right is yet another reason to use std::vector.) By the way, did I ever mention that arrays are evil?

Making a string in apex class bold? Another such feature is "On Error Resume Next", which also does not exist in C#. Verifying that all the function's return statements return the same local variable requires extra work on the part of the compiler writers, which is usually why some compilers fail to implement You can't return null.

This is what's done in the second parameter of fopen(), for example. more hot questions question feed lang-cs about us tour help blog chat data legal privacy policy work here advertising info mobile contact us feedback Technology Life / Arts Culture / Recreation What happened to FN-1824?

Said another way, does return-by-value necessarily degrade performance?

up vote 8 down vote favorite Is this legal? For non-union class types, members with the same member access are always allocated so that the members declared later have higher addresses within a class object. Why are classes with static data members getting linker errors? This might even be a library class such as std::string, but for now we'll just call it Bar: class Bar { public: Bar(); // ... }; Now suppose there's another class

Remove the Shared keyword from the procedure declaration.See AlsoShared Show: Inherited Protected Print Export (0) Print Export (0) Share IN THIS ARTICLE Is this page helpful? On 1941 Dec 7, could Japan have destroyed the Panama Canal instead of Pearl Harbor in a surprise attack? That's where the second version of the Construct On First Use Idiom came in: it doesn't leak the object, but it does not control the order of static deinitialization, so it If that's the case, you should use the explicit keyword: class Foo { public: explicit Foo(int x); explicit operator int(); }; class Bar { public: explicit Bar(double x); explicit operator double();

Such as: Why does the compiler copy my objects when I don't want it to? Is this down to the compiler handling it differently? For example, suppose we are building a Point class that represents a position on the X-Y plane. struct A { int a; char b; }; struct B { const int b1; volatile char b2; }; // A and B's common initial sequence is A.a, A.b and B.b1, B.b2

We only have to add struct before A because in C, structure names are placed in a separate namespace: struct A b = {}; // C89; same as C++ above struct In other words, the order of the initialization list should mimic the order in which initializations will take place.

Back to Top