Deleting copy constructor breaks inherited constructors

后端 未结 3 1567
有刺的猬
有刺的猬 2021-02-19 19:41

I am trying to use the constructor inheritance feature of C++11. The following snippet (copied from somewhere, I don\'t remember whence) works completely fine:

#         


        
相关标签:
3条回答
  • 2021-02-19 19:58

    Whenever you define a custom constructor you need to provide a default constructor explicitly. I.e.

    Derived::Derived() = default;
    
    0 讨论(0)
  • 2021-02-19 20:02

    Inheriting constructors doesn't get the special constructors -- empty, copy, move. This is because what you are asking for literally is almost always a bad idea.


    Examine:

    struct base {
      std::vector<int> data;
      base(base const&)=default;
      base(base&&)=default;
      base(size_t n):data(n) {}
      base()=default;
    };
    
    struct derived:base {
      using base::base;
      std::vector<char> more_data;
    };
    

    do you really want derived(base const&) to exist? Or base(base&&)? Both would hopelessly slice derived.

    The danger of those operations happening "accidentally" means you have to bring them in explicitly if you want them.


    The copy/move/default ctors, by default, happen to just call the parent version, plus the ctors of member variables. There is no need (usually) to involve inheriting them from your parent.

    However, once you =delete, =default or define one of these special ctors, the other ones stop being generated by the compiler. So you have to =default the other ones, if you still want them to stick around.

    0 讨论(0)
  • 2021-02-19 20:20

    The problem is that marking a copy constructor with delete makes it user-declared, which in effect deletes the default constructor of that class (in your case Derived). The behaviour can be seen in this simple code:

    struct X
    {
        X(const X&) = delete; // now the default constructor is not defined anymore
    };
    
    int main() 
    {
        X x; // cannot construct X, default constructor is inaccessible 
    }
    

    As a side remark: even if Base::Base() would be inherited, the compiler would see it like Derived(): Base(){}. But Derived is deleted, so it cannot really call Base::Base(). In general, a using Base::Base statement is just syntactic sugar for the corresponding compiler-generated Derived(params): Base(params){}.

    0 讨论(0)
提交回复
热议问题