«

Hello. Sometimes I see that some class constructors were implemented
with assignment operator and I wanna know whether it is safe to do
that or not?

Weihui Shen wrote:
> Hello. Sometimes I see that some class constructors were implemented
> with assignment operator and I wanna know whether it is safe to do
> that or not?
>

An example of code you're referring to would really help.

My crystal ball tells me no.

Weihui Shen <> wrote in message...
> Hello. Sometimes I see that some class constructors were implemented
> with assignment operator and I wanna know whether it is safe to do
> that or not?
>

Are you asking about 'initialization lists'?

class Sex{
int x, y;
public:
Sex() : x( 0 ), y( 0 ){}
Sex( int u, int v ) : x( u ), y( v ){}
};
Not only safe, it's the best way to do it (unless you have good cause not
to).

Or, did you mean this:

class Sex{
int x, y;
public:
Sex(){ x= 0 ; y= 0; }
Sex( int u, int v ){ x= u; y= v; }
};
If you need to. It's safe.

Or, did you mean this:

class Sex2{ public:
int x, y;
Sex2& operator=( Sex2 const &sx){
x = sx.x;
y = sx.y;
return *this;
}
};
It's safe.

Otherwise, show what you mean.

FAQ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite

--
Bob R
POVrookie

On 8 3 , 2 40 , "BobR" <removeBadB...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Weihui Shen <swl...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> > Hello. Sometimes I see that some class constructors were implemented
> > with assignment operator and I wanna know whether it is safe to do
> > that or not?
>
> Are you asking about 'initialization lists'?
>
> class Sex{
> int x, y;
> public:
> Sex() : x( 0 ), y( 0 ){}
> Sex( int u, int v ) : x( u ), y( v ){}
> };
> Not only safe, it's the best way to do it (unless you have good cause not
> to).
>
> Or, did you mean this:
>
> class Sex{
> int x, y;
> public:
> Sex(){ x= 0 ; y= 0; }
> Sex( int u, int v ){ x= u; y= v; }
> };
> If you need to. It's safe.
>
> Or, did you mean this:
>
> class Sex2{ public:
> int x, y;
> Sex2& operator=( Sex2 const &sx){
> x = sx.x;
> y = sx.y;
> return *this;
> }
> };
> It's safe.
>
> Otherwise, show what you mean.
>
> FAQ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite
>
> --
> Bob R
> POVrookie

Sorry for my obscure question.
Please consider the following code:

class A {
public:
A(int a) {
*this = a; // call A:perator=(int), it's safe?
}
A& operator =(int b) {
a = b;
return *this;
}
private:
int a;
};

I mean that calling A's assignment operator in A's constructor.

> class A {
> public:
> A(int a) {
> *this = a; // call A:perator=(int), it's safe?

May be I should write this ctor like this:

A(int x) {
*this = x;
}

On Aug 3, 9:16 am, Weihui Shen <swl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 3 , 2 40 , "BobR" <removeBadB...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Weihui Shen <swl...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> > > Hello. Sometimes I see that some class constructors were implemented
> > > with assignment operator and I wanna know whether it is safe to do
> > > that or not?

[...]
> Please consider the following code:

> class A {
> public:
> A(int a) {
> *this = a; // call A:perator=(int), it's safe?
> }
> A& operator =(int b) {
> a = b;
> return *this;
> }
> private:
> int a;
> };

> I mean that calling A's assignment operator in A's constructor.

As a general rule, no. In general, an assignment operator can
only be called on a fully constructed object.

The usual idiom, in fact, is the reverse: use the copy
constructor to implement assignment. This is often associated
with a shallow swap, to give something like:

A&
A:perator=(
A const& other )
{
A tmp( other ) ;
tmp.swap( *this ) ; // but ONLY if swap is shallow!!!
return *this ;
}

The idea, of course, is that any operations that might fail will
have taken place before any modification to the object.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34