Suppose I have the following:
#include
struct A { int x; };
class B {
B(int x, std::unique_ptr a);
};
class C : public B {
C(st
As alternative to Praetorian's answer, you can use constructor delegate:
class C : public B {
public:
C(std::unique_ptr<A> a) :
C(a->x, std::move(a)) // this move doesn't nullify a.
{}
private:
C(int x, std::unique_ptr<A>&& a) :
B(x, std::move(a)) // this one does, but we already have copied x
{}
};
Use list initialization to construct B
. The elements are then guaranteed to be evaluated from left to right.
C(std::unique_ptr<A> a) : B{a->x, std::move(a)} {}
// ^ ^ - braces
From §8.5.4/4 [dcl.init.list]
Within the initializer-list of a braced-init-list, the initializer-clauses, including any that result from pack expansions (14.5.3), are evaluated in the order in which they appear. That is, every value computation and side effect associated with a given initializer-clause is sequenced before every value computation and side effect associated with any initializer-clause that follows it in the comma-separated list of the initializer-list.
Praetorian's suggestion of using list initialization seems to work, but it has a few problems:
B
to accidentally forget to use {}
instead of ()
. The designers of B
's interface has imposed this potential bug on us.If we could change B, then perhaps one better solution for constructors is to always pass unique_ptr by rvalue reference instead of by value.
struct A { int x; };
class B {
B(std::unique_ptr<A>&& a, int x) : _x(x), _a(std::move(a)) {}
};
Now we can safely use std::move().
B b(std::move(a), a->x);
B b{std::move(a), a->x};