Non default constructor for array objects

[Kutty Banerjee]

Hi,
MyClass *myclass_=new MyClass[100];

and MyClass::MyClass(int) and no default constructor. My object assignment
obviously gives an error. So waht is the correct way to do it without using
vectors of course.

kutty

[Buster]

Kutty Banerjee wrote:

MyClass *myclass_=new MyClass[100];

You cannot create an array-of-T if T has no default constructor.
Therefore, if you insist on an array then you must provide a default
constructor, and if you cannot provide a default constructor then you
cannot create an array.

You can work with uninitialized memory, either with arrays of some
built-in type and reinterpret_cast, or using std::allocator.

--
Regards,
Buster.

[Denis Remezov]

Kutty Banerjee wrote:

Hi,
MyClass *myclass_=new MyClass[100];

and MyClass::MyClass(int) and no default constructor. My object assignment
obviously gives an error. So waht is the correct way to do it without using
vectors of course.

kutty

Technically, it is possible to use placement new to construct objects of MyClass
on a previously allocated pool. You would then call new(address) MyClass(value)
iteratively and you could even pass a different value to the constructor each
time. There are a couple of issues with that approach that might not be
immediately obvious. The syntax for destruction is different from normal
as well. See FAQ 11.10 and 11.14 (www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite).

Practically, placement new should better be avoided if there is a sensible
alternative. Why not use a vector?

Denis

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Buster <no***@nowhere.com> schriebt:

Kutty Banerjee wrote:

MyClass *myclass_=new MyClass[100];

Don't use an array, use e.g. std::vector.

You cannot create an array-of-T if T has no default constructor.
std::string const a[] = { "Hey", "Ho", "Here", "We", "Go" };

Therefore, if you insist on an array then you must provide a default
constructor
No that is not necessary. But with direct storage in the array an initializer
must be provided. Alternatively, as Deniz Remezov remarked, it's possible to
use placement new, but best avoided. Alternatively, just copy the objects
into the array:
std::string a[50];
for( unsigned i = 0; i < 50; ++i ) { a[i] = "Wow!"; }

std::vector<std::string> b( 50 );
for( unsigned i = 0; i < 50; ++i ) { b[i] = "Wow!"; }
Or, for example, use a std::vector of boost::shared_ptr.

and if you cannot provide a default constructor then you cannot create an
array.

That turns out not to be the case... ;-)

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Buster]

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

* Buster <no***@nowhere.com> schriebt:

Kutty Banerjee wrote:

MyClass *myclass_=new MyClass[100];
Don't use an array, use e.g. std::vector.
Good advice.
You cannot create an array-of-T if T has no default constructor.

std::string const a[] = { "Hey", "Ho", "Here", "We", "Go" };

OK, I see.

Therefore, if you insist on an array then you must provide a default
constructor

No that is not necessary. But with direct storage in the array an initializer
must be provided. Alternatively, as Deniz Remezov remarked, it's possible to
use placement new, but best avoided. Alternatively, just copy the objects
into the array:

You can't do this. If you had used a type without a default constructor
your compiler would have complained.
std::string a[50];
for( unsigned i = 0; i < 50; ++i ) { a[i] = "Wow!"; }

std::vector<std::string> b( 50 );
for( unsigned i = 0; i < 50; ++i ) { b[i] = "Wow!"; }

Or, for example, use a std::vector of boost::shared_ptr.

and if you cannot provide a default constructor then you cannot create an
array.

That turns out not to be the case... ;-)

Indeed.

--
Regards,
Buster.

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Buster <no***@nowhere.com> schriebt:

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

* Buster <no***@nowhere.com> schriebt:

Kutty Banerjee wrote:

MyClass *myclass_=new MyClass[100];

Don't use an array, use e.g. std::vector.

Good advice.

You cannot create an array-of-T if T has no default constructor.

std::string const a[] = { "Hey", "Ho", "Here", "We", "Go" };

OK, I see.

Therefore, if you insist on an array then you must provide a default
constructor

No that is not necessary. But with direct storage in the array an initializer
must be provided. Alternatively, as Deniz Remezov remarked, it's possible to
use placement new, but best avoided. Alternatively, just copy the objects
into the array:

You can't do this. If you had used a type without a default constructor
your compiler would have complained.

Right. Sorry. That technique requires placement new, again.

Ouch.

And thanks.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Buster]

Buster wrote:

[...]

You can work with uninitialized memory, either with arrays of some
built-in type and reinterpret_cast, or using std::allocator.

I should have said, "with arrays of some built-in type,
reinterpret_cast, placement new and explicit destructor calls".
std::allocator can be used instead of all that.

--
Regards,
Buster.