Why doesn't a class having private constructor prevent inheriting from this class? How to control which classes can inherit from a certain base? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InC++ zero initialization - Why is `b` in this program uninitialized, but `a` is initialized?Deleted default constructor. Objects can still be created… sometimesWhat is the default access of constructor in c++Extending a singleton class which has private constructor and destructor gives compile time warningHow to Restrict creation of objects from certain classCan a friend class invoke a private constructor in c++? (and what's Singleton)how can a base class disable the derived class's constructorCan you force classes inheriting from abstract base class to only have the public methods defined in base case?Inherit from class with private initializer?How to enforce private constructors in children of a base classConditional access to base class from inherited class in c++How to unit test a class with private constructor?Why does C++ forbid private inheritance of a final class?
Time travel alters history but people keep saying nothing's changed
How to support a colleague who finds meetings extremely tiring?
Landlord wants to switch my lease to a "Land contract" to "get back at the city"
What could be the right powersource for 15 seconds lifespan disposable giant chainsaw?
Why do UK politicians seemingly ignore opinion polls on Brexit?
Right tool to dig six foot holes?
How come people say “Would of”?
Loose spokes after only a few rides
Is "plugging out" electronic devices an American expression?
Is an up-to-date browser secure on an out-of-date OS?
What is the accessibility of a package's `Private` context variables?
Which Sci-Fi work first showed weapon of galactic-scale mass destruction?
What is the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation
Did Scotland spend $250,000 for the slogan "Welcome to Scotland"?
slides for 30min~1hr skype tenure track application interview
What tool would a Roman-age civilization have for the breaking of silver and other metals into dust?
Can one be advised by a professor who is very far away?
Why do we hear so much about the Trump administration deciding to impose and then remove tariffs?
How to check whether the reindex working or not in Magento?
One word riddle: Vowel in the middle
Why is the Constellation's nose gear so long?
Worn-tile Scrabble
Resizing object distorts it (Illustrator CC 2018)
Did Section 31 appear in Star Trek: The Next Generation?
Why doesn't a class having private constructor prevent inheriting from this class? How to control which classes can inherit from a certain base?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InC++ zero initialization - Why is `b` in this program uninitialized, but `a` is initialized?Deleted default constructor. Objects can still be created… sometimesWhat is the default access of constructor in c++Extending a singleton class which has private constructor and destructor gives compile time warningHow to Restrict creation of objects from certain classCan a friend class invoke a private constructor in c++? (and what's Singleton)how can a base class disable the derived class's constructorCan you force classes inheriting from abstract base class to only have the public methods defined in base case?Inherit from class with private initializer?How to enforce private constructors in children of a base classConditional access to base class from inherited class in c++How to unit test a class with private constructor?Why does C++ forbid private inheritance of a final class?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
class B
private:
friend class C;
B() = default;
;
class C : public B ;
class D : public B ;
int main()
C ;
D ;
return 0;
I assumed that since only class C
is a friend of B
, and B
's constructor is private, then only class C
is valid and D
is not allowed to instantiate B
. But that's not how it works. Where am I wrong with my reasoning, and how to achieve this kind of control over which classes are allowed to subclass a certain base?
Update: as pointed out by others in the comments, the snippet above works as I initially expected under C++14, but not C++17. Changing the instantiation to C c; D d;
in main()
does work as expected in C++17 mode as well.
c++ c++11 inheritance c++17
|
show 16 more comments
class B
private:
friend class C;
B() = default;
;
class C : public B ;
class D : public B ;
int main()
C ;
D ;
return 0;
I assumed that since only class C
is a friend of B
, and B
's constructor is private, then only class C
is valid and D
is not allowed to instantiate B
. But that's not how it works. Where am I wrong with my reasoning, and how to achieve this kind of control over which classes are allowed to subclass a certain base?
Update: as pointed out by others in the comments, the snippet above works as I initially expected under C++14, but not C++17. Changing the instantiation to C c; D d;
in main()
does work as expected in C++17 mode as well.
c++ c++11 inheritance c++17
See this: stackoverflow.com/questions/32235294/…
– Diodacus
Apr 5 at 12:14
@Diodacus: so what, declaring a private constructor as default makes it public, despite being declared in theprivate:
section?
– Violet Giraffe
Apr 5 at 12:17
2
I got the error you expect: "'D::D(void)': attempting to reference a deleted function" (msvs 2017)
– vahancho
Apr 5 at 12:17
1
@Stefan: I hear you, but there are exactly two classes for which it is semantically meaningful to subclassB
, and I'm trying to express/enforce this logical constraint in C++.
– Violet Giraffe
Apr 5 at 12:24
1
I have never seen "there are exactly two classes for which it is semantically meaningful to subclass B, and I'm trying to express/enforce this logical constraint in C++." actually survive prolonged contact with the future. Some future programmer, perhaps even you, will curse you for failing to see their patently obvious need for another subclass.
– Eric Towers
Apr 5 at 17:26
|
show 16 more comments
class B
private:
friend class C;
B() = default;
;
class C : public B ;
class D : public B ;
int main()
C ;
D ;
return 0;
I assumed that since only class C
is a friend of B
, and B
's constructor is private, then only class C
is valid and D
is not allowed to instantiate B
. But that's not how it works. Where am I wrong with my reasoning, and how to achieve this kind of control over which classes are allowed to subclass a certain base?
Update: as pointed out by others in the comments, the snippet above works as I initially expected under C++14, but not C++17. Changing the instantiation to C c; D d;
in main()
does work as expected in C++17 mode as well.
c++ c++11 inheritance c++17
class B
private:
friend class C;
B() = default;
;
class C : public B ;
class D : public B ;
int main()
C ;
D ;
return 0;
I assumed that since only class C
is a friend of B
, and B
's constructor is private, then only class C
is valid and D
is not allowed to instantiate B
. But that's not how it works. Where am I wrong with my reasoning, and how to achieve this kind of control over which classes are allowed to subclass a certain base?
Update: as pointed out by others in the comments, the snippet above works as I initially expected under C++14, but not C++17. Changing the instantiation to C c; D d;
in main()
does work as expected in C++17 mode as well.
c++ c++11 inheritance c++17
c++ c++11 inheritance c++17
edited Apr 5 at 12:29
Violet Giraffe
asked Apr 5 at 12:12
Violet GiraffeViolet Giraffe
15.1k29139256
15.1k29139256
See this: stackoverflow.com/questions/32235294/…
– Diodacus
Apr 5 at 12:14
@Diodacus: so what, declaring a private constructor as default makes it public, despite being declared in theprivate:
section?
– Violet Giraffe
Apr 5 at 12:17
2
I got the error you expect: "'D::D(void)': attempting to reference a deleted function" (msvs 2017)
– vahancho
Apr 5 at 12:17
1
@Stefan: I hear you, but there are exactly two classes for which it is semantically meaningful to subclassB
, and I'm trying to express/enforce this logical constraint in C++.
– Violet Giraffe
Apr 5 at 12:24
1
I have never seen "there are exactly two classes for which it is semantically meaningful to subclass B, and I'm trying to express/enforce this logical constraint in C++." actually survive prolonged contact with the future. Some future programmer, perhaps even you, will curse you for failing to see their patently obvious need for another subclass.
– Eric Towers
Apr 5 at 17:26
|
show 16 more comments
See this: stackoverflow.com/questions/32235294/…
– Diodacus
Apr 5 at 12:14
@Diodacus: so what, declaring a private constructor as default makes it public, despite being declared in theprivate:
section?
– Violet Giraffe
Apr 5 at 12:17
2
I got the error you expect: "'D::D(void)': attempting to reference a deleted function" (msvs 2017)
– vahancho
Apr 5 at 12:17
1
@Stefan: I hear you, but there are exactly two classes for which it is semantically meaningful to subclassB
, and I'm trying to express/enforce this logical constraint in C++.
– Violet Giraffe
Apr 5 at 12:24
1
I have never seen "there are exactly two classes for which it is semantically meaningful to subclass B, and I'm trying to express/enforce this logical constraint in C++." actually survive prolonged contact with the future. Some future programmer, perhaps even you, will curse you for failing to see their patently obvious need for another subclass.
– Eric Towers
Apr 5 at 17:26
See this: stackoverflow.com/questions/32235294/…
– Diodacus
Apr 5 at 12:14
See this: stackoverflow.com/questions/32235294/…
– Diodacus
Apr 5 at 12:14
@Diodacus: so what, declaring a private constructor as default makes it public, despite being declared in the
private:
section?– Violet Giraffe
Apr 5 at 12:17
@Diodacus: so what, declaring a private constructor as default makes it public, despite being declared in the
private:
section?– Violet Giraffe
Apr 5 at 12:17
2
2
I got the error you expect: "'D::D(void)': attempting to reference a deleted function" (msvs 2017)
– vahancho
Apr 5 at 12:17
I got the error you expect: "'D::D(void)': attempting to reference a deleted function" (msvs 2017)
– vahancho
Apr 5 at 12:17
1
1
@Stefan: I hear you, but there are exactly two classes for which it is semantically meaningful to subclass
B
, and I'm trying to express/enforce this logical constraint in C++.– Violet Giraffe
Apr 5 at 12:24
@Stefan: I hear you, but there are exactly two classes for which it is semantically meaningful to subclass
B
, and I'm trying to express/enforce this logical constraint in C++.– Violet Giraffe
Apr 5 at 12:24
1
1
I have never seen "there are exactly two classes for which it is semantically meaningful to subclass B, and I'm trying to express/enforce this logical constraint in C++." actually survive prolonged contact with the future. Some future programmer, perhaps even you, will curse you for failing to see their patently obvious need for another subclass.
– Eric Towers
Apr 5 at 17:26
I have never seen "there are exactly two classes for which it is semantically meaningful to subclass B, and I'm trying to express/enforce this logical constraint in C++." actually survive prolonged contact with the future. Some future programmer, perhaps even you, will curse you for failing to see their patently obvious need for another subclass.
– Eric Towers
Apr 5 at 17:26
|
show 16 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
This is a new feature added to C++17. What is going on is C
is now considered an aggregate. Since it is an aggregate, it doesn't need a constructor. If we look at [dcl.init.aggr]/1 we get that an aggregate is
An aggregate is an array or a class with
no user-provided, explicit, or inherited constructors ([class.ctor]),
no private or protected non-static data members (Clause [class.access]),
no virtual functions, and
no virtual, private, or protected base classes ([class.mi]).
[ Note: Aggregate initialization does not allow accessing protected and private base class' members or constructors. — end note ]
And we check of all those bullet points. You don't have any constructors declared in C
or D
so there is bullet 1. You don't have any data members so the second bullet doesn't matter, and your base class is public so the third bullet is satisfied.
The change that happened between C++11/14 and C++17 that allows this is that aggregates can now have base classes. You can see the old wording here where it expressly stated that bases classes are not allowed.
We can confirm this by checking the trait std::is_aggregate_v
like
int main()
std::cout << std::is_aggregate_v<C>;
which will print 1.
Do note that since C
is a friend of B
you can use
C c;
C c1;
C c2 = C();
As valid ways to initialize a C
. Since D
is not a friend of B
the only one that works is D d;
as that is aggregate initialization. All of the other forms try to default initialize and that can't be done since D
has a deleted default constructor.
1
I guess writing defaulted constructor definition out of class likeB::B() = default;
will be considered a user-provided constructor, while defaulting it in class is considered a not-user-provided constructor?
– VTT
Apr 5 at 12:44
2
@VTT That makes no difference.B() = default
inside the class is still a user declared constructor.
– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 12:45
1
@NathanOliver you sure? I'm quite certain that during one of the many talks in cppcon one of the lecturers explained the difference, although it may be applied elsewhere, not in this very example. Can't find the link tho.
– Fureeish
Apr 5 at 12:46
1
@Fureeish 100% sure. What moving the constructor out of the class does change is how the object is initialized: stackoverflow.com/questions/54350114/…
– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 12:49
2
@VioletGiraffeD d2();
is the most vexing parse so you have a function, not an object.
– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 13:15
|
show 14 more comments
From What is the default access of constructor in c++:
If there is no user-declared constructor for class X, a constructor having no parameters is implicitly declared as defaulted. An implicitly-declared default constructor is an inline public member of its class.
If the class definition does not explicitly declare a copy constructor, one is declared implicitly. [...] An implicitly-declared copy/move constructor is an inline public member of its class.
Constructors for classes C and D are generated internally by compiler.
BTW.: If you want to play with inheritance, please make sure you have virtual destructor defined.
1
I think you misunderstood the point of my confusion, although your link is still relevant. I know eachC
andD
has a default public constructor, butD
is not supposed to be able to instantiate the instance of its base classB
because of the latter's constructor being private.
– Violet Giraffe
Apr 5 at 12:19
does this answer the question?
– sp2danny
Apr 5 at 12:21
So whyB() = default;
is threated as "no user-declared constructor"?
– VTT
Apr 5 at 12:23
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55535107%2fwhy-doesnt-a-class-having-private-constructor-prevent-inheriting-from-this-clas%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This is a new feature added to C++17. What is going on is C
is now considered an aggregate. Since it is an aggregate, it doesn't need a constructor. If we look at [dcl.init.aggr]/1 we get that an aggregate is
An aggregate is an array or a class with
no user-provided, explicit, or inherited constructors ([class.ctor]),
no private or protected non-static data members (Clause [class.access]),
no virtual functions, and
no virtual, private, or protected base classes ([class.mi]).
[ Note: Aggregate initialization does not allow accessing protected and private base class' members or constructors. — end note ]
And we check of all those bullet points. You don't have any constructors declared in C
or D
so there is bullet 1. You don't have any data members so the second bullet doesn't matter, and your base class is public so the third bullet is satisfied.
The change that happened between C++11/14 and C++17 that allows this is that aggregates can now have base classes. You can see the old wording here where it expressly stated that bases classes are not allowed.
We can confirm this by checking the trait std::is_aggregate_v
like
int main()
std::cout << std::is_aggregate_v<C>;
which will print 1.
Do note that since C
is a friend of B
you can use
C c;
C c1;
C c2 = C();
As valid ways to initialize a C
. Since D
is not a friend of B
the only one that works is D d;
as that is aggregate initialization. All of the other forms try to default initialize and that can't be done since D
has a deleted default constructor.
1
I guess writing defaulted constructor definition out of class likeB::B() = default;
will be considered a user-provided constructor, while defaulting it in class is considered a not-user-provided constructor?
– VTT
Apr 5 at 12:44
2
@VTT That makes no difference.B() = default
inside the class is still a user declared constructor.
– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 12:45
1
@NathanOliver you sure? I'm quite certain that during one of the many talks in cppcon one of the lecturers explained the difference, although it may be applied elsewhere, not in this very example. Can't find the link tho.
– Fureeish
Apr 5 at 12:46
1
@Fureeish 100% sure. What moving the constructor out of the class does change is how the object is initialized: stackoverflow.com/questions/54350114/…
– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 12:49
2
@VioletGiraffeD d2();
is the most vexing parse so you have a function, not an object.
– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 13:15
|
show 14 more comments
This is a new feature added to C++17. What is going on is C
is now considered an aggregate. Since it is an aggregate, it doesn't need a constructor. If we look at [dcl.init.aggr]/1 we get that an aggregate is
An aggregate is an array or a class with
no user-provided, explicit, or inherited constructors ([class.ctor]),
no private or protected non-static data members (Clause [class.access]),
no virtual functions, and
no virtual, private, or protected base classes ([class.mi]).
[ Note: Aggregate initialization does not allow accessing protected and private base class' members or constructors. — end note ]
And we check of all those bullet points. You don't have any constructors declared in C
or D
so there is bullet 1. You don't have any data members so the second bullet doesn't matter, and your base class is public so the third bullet is satisfied.
The change that happened between C++11/14 and C++17 that allows this is that aggregates can now have base classes. You can see the old wording here where it expressly stated that bases classes are not allowed.
We can confirm this by checking the trait std::is_aggregate_v
like
int main()
std::cout << std::is_aggregate_v<C>;
which will print 1.
Do note that since C
is a friend of B
you can use
C c;
C c1;
C c2 = C();
As valid ways to initialize a C
. Since D
is not a friend of B
the only one that works is D d;
as that is aggregate initialization. All of the other forms try to default initialize and that can't be done since D
has a deleted default constructor.
1
I guess writing defaulted constructor definition out of class likeB::B() = default;
will be considered a user-provided constructor, while defaulting it in class is considered a not-user-provided constructor?
– VTT
Apr 5 at 12:44
2
@VTT That makes no difference.B() = default
inside the class is still a user declared constructor.
– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 12:45
1
@NathanOliver you sure? I'm quite certain that during one of the many talks in cppcon one of the lecturers explained the difference, although it may be applied elsewhere, not in this very example. Can't find the link tho.
– Fureeish
Apr 5 at 12:46
1
@Fureeish 100% sure. What moving the constructor out of the class does change is how the object is initialized: stackoverflow.com/questions/54350114/…
– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 12:49
2
@VioletGiraffeD d2();
is the most vexing parse so you have a function, not an object.
– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 13:15
|
show 14 more comments
This is a new feature added to C++17. What is going on is C
is now considered an aggregate. Since it is an aggregate, it doesn't need a constructor. If we look at [dcl.init.aggr]/1 we get that an aggregate is
An aggregate is an array or a class with
no user-provided, explicit, or inherited constructors ([class.ctor]),
no private or protected non-static data members (Clause [class.access]),
no virtual functions, and
no virtual, private, or protected base classes ([class.mi]).
[ Note: Aggregate initialization does not allow accessing protected and private base class' members or constructors. — end note ]
And we check of all those bullet points. You don't have any constructors declared in C
or D
so there is bullet 1. You don't have any data members so the second bullet doesn't matter, and your base class is public so the third bullet is satisfied.
The change that happened between C++11/14 and C++17 that allows this is that aggregates can now have base classes. You can see the old wording here where it expressly stated that bases classes are not allowed.
We can confirm this by checking the trait std::is_aggregate_v
like
int main()
std::cout << std::is_aggregate_v<C>;
which will print 1.
Do note that since C
is a friend of B
you can use
C c;
C c1;
C c2 = C();
As valid ways to initialize a C
. Since D
is not a friend of B
the only one that works is D d;
as that is aggregate initialization. All of the other forms try to default initialize and that can't be done since D
has a deleted default constructor.
This is a new feature added to C++17. What is going on is C
is now considered an aggregate. Since it is an aggregate, it doesn't need a constructor. If we look at [dcl.init.aggr]/1 we get that an aggregate is
An aggregate is an array or a class with
no user-provided, explicit, or inherited constructors ([class.ctor]),
no private or protected non-static data members (Clause [class.access]),
no virtual functions, and
no virtual, private, or protected base classes ([class.mi]).
[ Note: Aggregate initialization does not allow accessing protected and private base class' members or constructors. — end note ]
And we check of all those bullet points. You don't have any constructors declared in C
or D
so there is bullet 1. You don't have any data members so the second bullet doesn't matter, and your base class is public so the third bullet is satisfied.
The change that happened between C++11/14 and C++17 that allows this is that aggregates can now have base classes. You can see the old wording here where it expressly stated that bases classes are not allowed.
We can confirm this by checking the trait std::is_aggregate_v
like
int main()
std::cout << std::is_aggregate_v<C>;
which will print 1.
Do note that since C
is a friend of B
you can use
C c;
C c1;
C c2 = C();
As valid ways to initialize a C
. Since D
is not a friend of B
the only one that works is D d;
as that is aggregate initialization. All of the other forms try to default initialize and that can't be done since D
has a deleted default constructor.
edited Apr 5 at 14:50
answered Apr 5 at 12:40
NathanOliverNathanOliver
98.6k16138218
98.6k16138218
1
I guess writing defaulted constructor definition out of class likeB::B() = default;
will be considered a user-provided constructor, while defaulting it in class is considered a not-user-provided constructor?
– VTT
Apr 5 at 12:44
2
@VTT That makes no difference.B() = default
inside the class is still a user declared constructor.
– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 12:45
1
@NathanOliver you sure? I'm quite certain that during one of the many talks in cppcon one of the lecturers explained the difference, although it may be applied elsewhere, not in this very example. Can't find the link tho.
– Fureeish
Apr 5 at 12:46
1
@Fureeish 100% sure. What moving the constructor out of the class does change is how the object is initialized: stackoverflow.com/questions/54350114/…
– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 12:49
2
@VioletGiraffeD d2();
is the most vexing parse so you have a function, not an object.
– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 13:15
|
show 14 more comments
1
I guess writing defaulted constructor definition out of class likeB::B() = default;
will be considered a user-provided constructor, while defaulting it in class is considered a not-user-provided constructor?
– VTT
Apr 5 at 12:44
2
@VTT That makes no difference.B() = default
inside the class is still a user declared constructor.
– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 12:45
1
@NathanOliver you sure? I'm quite certain that during one of the many talks in cppcon one of the lecturers explained the difference, although it may be applied elsewhere, not in this very example. Can't find the link tho.
– Fureeish
Apr 5 at 12:46
1
@Fureeish 100% sure. What moving the constructor out of the class does change is how the object is initialized: stackoverflow.com/questions/54350114/…
– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 12:49
2
@VioletGiraffeD d2();
is the most vexing parse so you have a function, not an object.
– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 13:15
1
1
I guess writing defaulted constructor definition out of class like
B::B() = default;
will be considered a user-provided constructor, while defaulting it in class is considered a not-user-provided constructor?– VTT
Apr 5 at 12:44
I guess writing defaulted constructor definition out of class like
B::B() = default;
will be considered a user-provided constructor, while defaulting it in class is considered a not-user-provided constructor?– VTT
Apr 5 at 12:44
2
2
@VTT That makes no difference.
B() = default
inside the class is still a user declared constructor.– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 12:45
@VTT That makes no difference.
B() = default
inside the class is still a user declared constructor.– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 12:45
1
1
@NathanOliver you sure? I'm quite certain that during one of the many talks in cppcon one of the lecturers explained the difference, although it may be applied elsewhere, not in this very example. Can't find the link tho.
– Fureeish
Apr 5 at 12:46
@NathanOliver you sure? I'm quite certain that during one of the many talks in cppcon one of the lecturers explained the difference, although it may be applied elsewhere, not in this very example. Can't find the link tho.
– Fureeish
Apr 5 at 12:46
1
1
@Fureeish 100% sure. What moving the constructor out of the class does change is how the object is initialized: stackoverflow.com/questions/54350114/…
– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 12:49
@Fureeish 100% sure. What moving the constructor out of the class does change is how the object is initialized: stackoverflow.com/questions/54350114/…
– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 12:49
2
2
@VioletGiraffe
D d2();
is the most vexing parse so you have a function, not an object.– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 13:15
@VioletGiraffe
D d2();
is the most vexing parse so you have a function, not an object.– NathanOliver
Apr 5 at 13:15
|
show 14 more comments
From What is the default access of constructor in c++:
If there is no user-declared constructor for class X, a constructor having no parameters is implicitly declared as defaulted. An implicitly-declared default constructor is an inline public member of its class.
If the class definition does not explicitly declare a copy constructor, one is declared implicitly. [...] An implicitly-declared copy/move constructor is an inline public member of its class.
Constructors for classes C and D are generated internally by compiler.
BTW.: If you want to play with inheritance, please make sure you have virtual destructor defined.
1
I think you misunderstood the point of my confusion, although your link is still relevant. I know eachC
andD
has a default public constructor, butD
is not supposed to be able to instantiate the instance of its base classB
because of the latter's constructor being private.
– Violet Giraffe
Apr 5 at 12:19
does this answer the question?
– sp2danny
Apr 5 at 12:21
So whyB() = default;
is threated as "no user-declared constructor"?
– VTT
Apr 5 at 12:23
add a comment |
From What is the default access of constructor in c++:
If there is no user-declared constructor for class X, a constructor having no parameters is implicitly declared as defaulted. An implicitly-declared default constructor is an inline public member of its class.
If the class definition does not explicitly declare a copy constructor, one is declared implicitly. [...] An implicitly-declared copy/move constructor is an inline public member of its class.
Constructors for classes C and D are generated internally by compiler.
BTW.: If you want to play with inheritance, please make sure you have virtual destructor defined.
1
I think you misunderstood the point of my confusion, although your link is still relevant. I know eachC
andD
has a default public constructor, butD
is not supposed to be able to instantiate the instance of its base classB
because of the latter's constructor being private.
– Violet Giraffe
Apr 5 at 12:19
does this answer the question?
– sp2danny
Apr 5 at 12:21
So whyB() = default;
is threated as "no user-declared constructor"?
– VTT
Apr 5 at 12:23
add a comment |
From What is the default access of constructor in c++:
If there is no user-declared constructor for class X, a constructor having no parameters is implicitly declared as defaulted. An implicitly-declared default constructor is an inline public member of its class.
If the class definition does not explicitly declare a copy constructor, one is declared implicitly. [...] An implicitly-declared copy/move constructor is an inline public member of its class.
Constructors for classes C and D are generated internally by compiler.
BTW.: If you want to play with inheritance, please make sure you have virtual destructor defined.
From What is the default access of constructor in c++:
If there is no user-declared constructor for class X, a constructor having no parameters is implicitly declared as defaulted. An implicitly-declared default constructor is an inline public member of its class.
If the class definition does not explicitly declare a copy constructor, one is declared implicitly. [...] An implicitly-declared copy/move constructor is an inline public member of its class.
Constructors for classes C and D are generated internally by compiler.
BTW.: If you want to play with inheritance, please make sure you have virtual destructor defined.
edited Apr 5 at 12:27
TrebledJ
3,65421328
3,65421328
answered Apr 5 at 12:16
DiodacusDiodacus
2276
2276
1
I think you misunderstood the point of my confusion, although your link is still relevant. I know eachC
andD
has a default public constructor, butD
is not supposed to be able to instantiate the instance of its base classB
because of the latter's constructor being private.
– Violet Giraffe
Apr 5 at 12:19
does this answer the question?
– sp2danny
Apr 5 at 12:21
So whyB() = default;
is threated as "no user-declared constructor"?
– VTT
Apr 5 at 12:23
add a comment |
1
I think you misunderstood the point of my confusion, although your link is still relevant. I know eachC
andD
has a default public constructor, butD
is not supposed to be able to instantiate the instance of its base classB
because of the latter's constructor being private.
– Violet Giraffe
Apr 5 at 12:19
does this answer the question?
– sp2danny
Apr 5 at 12:21
So whyB() = default;
is threated as "no user-declared constructor"?
– VTT
Apr 5 at 12:23
1
1
I think you misunderstood the point of my confusion, although your link is still relevant. I know each
C
and D
has a default public constructor, but D
is not supposed to be able to instantiate the instance of its base class B
because of the latter's constructor being private.– Violet Giraffe
Apr 5 at 12:19
I think you misunderstood the point of my confusion, although your link is still relevant. I know each
C
and D
has a default public constructor, but D
is not supposed to be able to instantiate the instance of its base class B
because of the latter's constructor being private.– Violet Giraffe
Apr 5 at 12:19
does this answer the question?
– sp2danny
Apr 5 at 12:21
does this answer the question?
– sp2danny
Apr 5 at 12:21
So why
B() = default;
is threated as "no user-declared constructor"?– VTT
Apr 5 at 12:23
So why
B() = default;
is threated as "no user-declared constructor"?– VTT
Apr 5 at 12:23
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55535107%2fwhy-doesnt-a-class-having-private-constructor-prevent-inheriting-from-this-clas%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
See this: stackoverflow.com/questions/32235294/…
– Diodacus
Apr 5 at 12:14
@Diodacus: so what, declaring a private constructor as default makes it public, despite being declared in the
private:
section?– Violet Giraffe
Apr 5 at 12:17
2
I got the error you expect: "'D::D(void)': attempting to reference a deleted function" (msvs 2017)
– vahancho
Apr 5 at 12:17
1
@Stefan: I hear you, but there are exactly two classes for which it is semantically meaningful to subclass
B
, and I'm trying to express/enforce this logical constraint in C++.– Violet Giraffe
Apr 5 at 12:24
1
I have never seen "there are exactly two classes for which it is semantically meaningful to subclass B, and I'm trying to express/enforce this logical constraint in C++." actually survive prolonged contact with the future. Some future programmer, perhaps even you, will curse you for failing to see their patently obvious need for another subclass.
– Eric Towers
Apr 5 at 17:26