469,628 Members | 1,033 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,628 developers. It's quick & easy.

multiple inheritance and constructors

Hi, I have some classes as follows:

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

class A {
public:
virtual A* clone() const = 0;
};
class B {
public:
B(const B& rhs) : p(0)
{
delete p;
p = new int;
*p = *rhs.p;
}
private:
int* p;
};
class C : public A, public B {
public:
C* clone() const
{
#24 return new C(*this);
}
};
int main()
{
#29 A* pa = new C;
A* pa2 = pa->clone();
}

this code gives the following errors under g++/cygwin:
29: no matching function for call to C::C()
24: candidates are C::C(const C&)

okay... this is puzzling. If I take out B's copy constructor, then it
compiles. It also appears that if I define any sort of new constructors
(default, non-defualt ones), then I cannot use the compiler supplied
defaults. The compiler then complains that it cannot find those default
constructors. Is this just an issue with MI or in general? Also, are there
any solutions to this besides defining all the constructors, copy
constructors in the inheritance hierarchy? Thanks in advance.

JJ.
Jul 19 '05 #1
4 5619

"Jimmy Johns" <as**@asdf123asdf.net> wrote in message
news:bh***********@news.eecs.umich.edu...
Hi, I have some classes as follows:

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

class A {
public:
virtual A* clone() const = 0;
};
class B {
public:
B(const B& rhs) : p(0)
{
delete p;
p = new int;
*p = *rhs.p;
}
private:
int* p;
};
class C : public A, public B {
public:
C* clone() const
{
#24 return new C(*this);
}
};
int main()
{
#29 A* pa = new C;
A* pa2 = pa->clone();
}

this code gives the following errors under g++/cygwin:
29: no matching function for call to C::C()
24: candidates are C::C(const C&)

okay... this is puzzling. If I take out B's copy constructor, then it
compiles. It also appears that if I define any sort of new constructors
(default, non-defualt ones), then I cannot use the compiler supplied
defaults.
If you define any ctor, then the compiler will not generate a default
(no-arg) ctor. It will still generate a copy ctor.
The compiler then complains that it cannot find those default
constructors. Is this just an issue with MI or in general?
In general.
Also, are there
any solutions to this besides defining all the constructors, copy
constructors in the inheritance hierarchy? Thanks in advance.

JJ.


There is no issue, you seem to lack confidence in C++ and assume that it is
going to force you do to lots of work.

By defining a ctor, you lose the default ctor. That makes sense since a
class with no ctors must still be constructed somehow, so the compiler
generates a default ctor. As soon as you write a ctor, you are saying 'I
know how to construct this class, don't generate a default ctor for me'.
Which again is sensible, many classes don't want a default ctor.

None of this has anything to do with copy ctors which are still generated by
the compiler unless you write your own.

john
Jul 19 '05 #2

okay... this is puzzling. If I take out B's copy constructor, then it
compiles. It also appears that if I define any sort of new constructors
(default, non-defualt ones), then I cannot use the compiler supplied
defaults. The compiler then complains that it cannot find those default
constructors. Is this just an issue with MI or in general? Also, are there any solutions to this besides defining all the constructors, copy
constructors in the inheritance hierarchy? Thanks in advance.

JJ.


The compiler supplied copy constructor is a binary copy, so the pointers
within the "B" class point to the same data. Once you have defined one of
the copy constructors you pretty much have to declare them all.

// something like this
C(const &c):B(c) { }
// or maybe this...
C(const &c):B::B(c) { }


Jul 19 '05 #3
but can anyone duplicate the error I'm getting? Right now my project in VC7
has pretty much the same layout, but slightly more complicated, and it still
insists that I define the ctor, copy ctor myself. Is this a bug or
something in the standard?

thanks.

JJ
"John Harrison" <jo*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bh************@ID-196037.news.uni-berlin.de...

"John Isaacks" <ji******@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:vY*****************@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com.. .

okay... this is puzzling. If I take out B's copy constructor, then it
compiles. It also appears that if I define any sort of new constructors (default, non-defualt ones), then I cannot use the compiler supplied
defaults. The compiler then complains that it cannot find those default constructors. Is this just an issue with MI or in general? Also, are

there
any solutions to this besides defining all the constructors, copy
constructors in the inheritance hierarchy? Thanks in advance.

JJ.


The compiler supplied copy constructor is a binary copy,


No it isn't, its a memberwise copy.
so the pointers
within the "B" class point to the same data.


That's true.
Once you have defined one of
the copy constructors you pretty much have to declare them all.


But that isn't. Once you have defined a copy constructor for one class you
do *not* have to define it for other classes that use that class. This is
the difference between a memberwise copy and a bitwise copy. The designers
of C++ would have been *extremely* stupid to have gone for a bitwise copy,
fortunately they didn't.

I suggest you write a couple of classes for yourself to test this out.

john

Jul 19 '05 #4

"Jimmy Johns" <as**@asdf123asdf.net> wrote in message
news:bh***********@news.eecs.umich.edu...
but can anyone duplicate the error I'm getting? Right now my project in VC7 has pretty much the same layout, but slightly more complicated, and it still insists that I define the ctor, copy ctor myself. Is this a bug or
something in the standard?


No, its not a bug. Think about, your class B does not have a (compiler
generated) default ctor, that's because you defined a copy ctor for B.
Therefore your class C which derives from B cannot have a default ctor
either, because the compiler generated default ctor for C would have to call
the default ctor for B (how could the compiler be smart enough to generate
anything else?). But the default ctor for B doesn't exist and isn't
generated, so the default ctor for C cannot be generated.

So to fix the bug, either write a default ctor for B, this will allow the
compiler to generate a default ctor for C, or write a default ctor for C
which can call whatever ctor for B you like.

john
Jul 19 '05 #5

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

4 posts views Thread by Busin | last post: by
22 posts views Thread by Matthew Louden | last post: by
45 posts views Thread by Ben Blank | last post: by
14 posts views Thread by dl | last post: by
7 posts views Thread by andrewfsears | last post: by
7 posts views Thread by Adam Nielsen | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by Jess | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.