Re: Call Constructor for object in struct

From:

Victor Bazarov <v.Abazarov@comAcast.net>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:42:36 -0400

Message-ID:

<gbri4c$23h$1@news.datemas.de>

puzzlecracker wrote:

On Sep 29, 5:25 pm, Victor Bazarov <v.Abaza...@comAcast.net> wrote:

puzzlecracker wrote:

[..]
I wonder why C++ is in favor of CMyClass(char const*); copy
constructor then CMyClass(char const &);
Any ideas?

Please rephrase your statement about C++ and favors. A copy constructor
for the 'CMyClass' class would be either

CMyClass(CMyClass const &);

or

CMyClass(CMyClass &);

Anything else is *not* a copy constructor.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

No need to rephrase, you answered it. I'm assuming, by providing one
of (pointer or reference version) copy ctors, the other one will not
be generated by compiler by default. Is my assumption correct, aka
reflected in the standard?

Erm... There is *no* "pointer version copy ctor". Copy constructors
*always* take a reference argument. And, no, if you define some other
constructor, the compiler will still provide a copy constructor in the
former interface, if it can (depends whether the members are copyable).

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask