Invoking a base class constructor

[Dominique]

Suppose I have:

class A
{
A(int x, int y);
};

and
class B: public A
{
.... some declarations
};

then I try:
int s, t;
B bObject(s, t);

I get a compiler error (gcc) that no constructor of the form B(int&, int&)
exists. However, I would have expected that the constructor from class A
would be invoked (since B 'is a' A). Adding a B(int x, int y), and using
that to invoke A solves the problem.

Am I doing something wrong?

Thanks
Dominique

[Ron Natalie]

"Dominique" <NODOTd.b.g.e.n .e.r.a.l.0.1.LO SEDOTS@cogecoDO Tca> wrote in message news:KI******** **********@read 1.cgocable.net. ..

I get a compiler error (gcc) that no constructor of the form B(int&, int&)
exists. However, I would have expected that the constructor from class A
would be invoked (since B 'is a' A). Adding a B(int x, int y), and using
that to invoke A solves the problem.

Am I doing something wrong?

Constructors don't get inheritted. The only constructors that exist for B
are the two implicitly generated ones:
B()
and B(const B&)

If you want one that takes two ints and passes them along as initailizers to
the A object you need to write:

B(int s, int t) : A(s,t) { }

Note that this will inhibit the creation of the B() constructor. If you need one, you
will have to provide it.

[amit gulati]

Ron Natalie wrote:

"Dominique" <NODOTd.b.g.e.n .e.r.a.l.0.1.LO SEDOTS@cogecoDO Tca> wrote in message news:KI******** **********@read 1.cgocable.net. ..

I get a compiler error (gcc) that no constructor of the form B(int&, int&)
exists. However, I would have expected that the constructor from class A
would be invoked (since B 'is a' A). Adding a B(int x, int y), and using
that to invoke A solves the problem.

Am I doing something wrong?

Constructors don't get inheritted. The only constructors that exist for B
are the two implicitly generated ones:
B()
and B(const B&)

If you want one that takes two ints and passes them along as initailizers to
the A object you need to write:

B(int s, int t) : A(s,t) { }

Note that this will inhibit the creation of the B() constructor. If you need one, you
will have to provide it.

That is not completely true, constructors do get inherited. The problem
with the code is that, since class A defines a non default cnstructor
A(int, int) the compiler does not generate a default constructor. Hence,
A() doesnot exist.

In B(int, int), since you are not explicitly calling A(int, int), the
compiler internally (while compiling) adds A() to the B(int, int)
constructor. But A() doesnot exists, hence you get the error message.

Good explanation of this phenomenon is present in the excellent book
"C++ object model" by Stanley lippman.

[Ron Natalie]

"amit gulati" <am********@cox .net> wrote in message news:bp******** **@news2.news.l arc.nasa.gov...

That is not completely true, constructors do get inherited.
No they don't. They have no name, they don't participate in lookup, so how
does the C++ notion of inheritance.
The problem
with the code is that, since class A defines a non default cnstructor
A(int, int) the compiler does not generate a default constructor. Hence,
A() doesnot exist.

This wasn't what he was asking. He wanted to know why he could construct
a B with two ints. The reason is that there is no B constructor that takes two
ints. Go back and read the original post.

[Rolf Magnus]

amit gulati wrote:

That is not completely true, constructors do get inherited.
No, they don't.
The problem with the code is that, since class A defines a non default
cnstructor A(int, int) the compiler does not generate a default
constructor. Hence, A() doesnot exist.
Right.
In B(int, int),
B(int, int) doesn't exist.
since you are not explicitly calling A(int, int), the
compiler internally (while compiling) adds A() to the B(int, int)
constructor. But A() doesnot exists, hence you get the error message.
He didn't get an error message that A() doesn't exist, but one that
B(int, int) doesn't exist, which is true.
Just try out what happens if you add a default constructor to A.
According to your explanation, it should work then.
Good explanation of this phenomenon is present in the excellent book
"C++ object model" by Stanley lippman.

Never heared of that book. Seems that it belongs on the
not-to-be-recommended list.

[amit gulati]

amit gulati wrote:

Ron Natalie wrote:

"Dominique" <NODOTd.b.g.e.n .e.r.a.l.0.1.LO SEDOTS@cogecoDO Tca> wrote in
message news:KI******** **********@read 1.cgocable.net. ..

I get a compiler error (gcc) that no constructor of the form B(int&,
int&)
exists. However, I would have expected that the constructor from class A
would be invoked (since B 'is a' A). Adding a B(int x, int y), and using
that to invoke A solves the problem.

Am I doing something wrong?

Constructors don't get inheritted. The only constructors that exist
for B
are the two implicitly generated ones:
B()
and B(const B&)

What I mean by inherited is that in class B you can call A's
constructors, doesn't that mean that the constructors are inherited. I
never said that if you define A(int, int) then the compiler will
generate B(int, int).

Inheritance means that the properties (data and functions) of the base
class are available to the sub class as if they were it's own.

Hence anywhere in B I can call A(int, int), this shows that the
constructor A(int, int) is inherited.

I agree I did not read the problem that the person had completely. But
the fact is constructors are inherited.

If you want one that takes two ints and passes them along as
initailizers to
the A object you need to write:

B(int s, int t) : A(s,t) { }

Note that this will inhibit the creation of the B() constructor. If
you need one, you
will have to provide it.

That is not completely true, constructors do get inherited. The problem
with the code is that, since class A defines a non default cnstructor
A(int, int) the compiler does not generate a default constructor. Hence,
A() doesnot exist.

In B(int, int), since you are not explicitly calling A(int, int), the
compiler internally (while compiling) adds A() to the B(int, int)
constructor. But A() doesnot exists, hence you get the error message.

Good explanation of this phenomenon is present in the excellent book
"C++ object model" by Stanley lippman.

[Ron Natalie]

"amit gulati" <am********@cox .net> wrote in message news:bp******** **@news2.news.l arc.nasa.gov...
=

What I mean by inherited is that in class B you can call A's
constructors, doesn't that mean that the constructors are inherited.
Well, you're still wrong. You can't call constructors at all.
Inheritance means that the properties (data and functions) of the base
class are available to the sub class as if they were it's own.
Which does not happen for constructors.
Hence anywhere in B I can call A(int, int), this shows that the
constructor A(int, int) is inherited.

You can't call A(int,int) anywhere. You can't call constructors.

[amit gulati]

Ron Natalie wrote:

"amit gulati" <am********@cox .net> wrote in message news:bp******** **@news2.news.l arc.nasa.gov...
=

What I mean by inherited is that in class B you can call A's
constructor s, doesn't that mean that the constructors are inherited.

Well, you're still wrong. You can't call constructors at all.

Inheritance means that the properties (data and functions) of the base
class are available to the sub class as if they were it's own.

Which does not happen for constructors.

Hence anywhere in B I can call A(int, int), this shows that the
constructor A(int, int) is inherited.

You can't call A(int,int) anywhere. You can't call constructors.

OOps! I messed up again.
Refered to the C++ annotated reference manual page 263

"Constructo rs are not inherited"

Thanks for clearing my doubts.