class superclass {
public: superclass() {... } // c'tor
public: virtual ~superclass() {... } // d'tor
}; // superclass
class derived: public superclass {
public: derived() : superclass() {
...
} // derived c'tor
public: virtual ~derived() {... } // derived d'tor
}; // derived class
A class's constructor will have the same name of the class and no return type (not even void): class Example(){ Example() {printf("This is the constructor\n");} ~Example(){printf("This is the destructor\n");} };
The order of constructors is determined by the sequence they are called in the code, starting with the base class constructor and moving to the derived class constructor. Destructors are called in the reverse order of constructors, starting with the derived class destructor and moving to the base class destructor.
The constructor of a class is automatically called when an instance of the class is created (using new in C++). The constructor method has the same name as the class that it is a part of. Constructors have no type and do not return anything. Similarly, the destructor is automatically called when the instance of the class is destroyed. The destructor is the same name as the class and is preceded by a tilde (~) For example: class Example { public: Example() // Constructor { printf("Object created\n"); } ~Example() // Destructor { printf("Object destroyed\n") } }; int main() { Example* x = new Example(); // Creates object, calls constructor delete x; // Calls destructor, deletes object return 0; }
Functions and Constructors are similar in many ways. They can have arguments, they can have any amount of code, they can access the class's variables etc. the only difference is that a method in java needs to mandatorily have a return type but a Constructor in java cannot have a return type. It always creates and returns an object of the class for which it is the constructor. You cannot return a value from a constructor explicitly and if you try to do that, the compiler will give an error. The system knows that the purpose of the constructor is to create an object of the class and it will do the same irrespective of whether you declare a return type or not.
The least-derived base classes are always constructed first, in the order specified by the derived class inheritance list. The most-derived class (the one you are actually instantiating) is always constructed last. Destruction is basically the reverse of construction. However, base class destructors must be declared virtual to ensure that the most-derived class destructor is called first, regardless of which class destructor is actually invoked. That is, if you hold a pointer to a base class that has no virtual destructor, deleting that pointer will only destroy the base class, not the derived class, leaving the derived class in an invalid state (because it no longer has an underlying base class) and with no way to recover the memory it consumes. It is important to remember that if you declare any virtual methods within a class, you must also declare the destructor virtual. A class without a virtual destructor is not intended to be derived from. If it has virtual methods, but no virtual destructor, it is not well-formed and must not be used as a base class.
The term "destructor" made me believe this question is related to .Net languages. A destructor is to destroy an instance of object. If it is available at static/class level, what is it going to destroy? The entire class, so the class no longer available? Thus, semantically, destructor should be an instance method. Constructor is on the opposite end of the life cycle of an instance. However, in .NET, a static constructor is allowed. Personally, I call this static constructor as a class initialization method. This method will be invoked by the .net framework only once when the class is loaded into the application domain. With the similar concept, there should be a "finalizer" of the class when the class is unloaded out of the application domain. But wait, does a class ever go out of the application domain once it's loaded? Yes, only at the termination of the application! Currently a class cannot be unloaded explicitly in codes and thus no point to have a static finalizer.
A constructor cannot be virtual because at the time when the constructor is invoked the virtual table would not be available in the memory. Hence we cannot have a virtual constructor. ## Constructor called implicitly not explicitly so constructor is not virtual.
class base { base():m_data(0){} base(int i):m_data(i){} base(const base& b):m_data(b.m_data){} private: int m_data; }; class derived : public base { derived():base(){} // call base class default constructor derived(int i):base(i){} // call base class overloaded constructor derived(const derived& d):base(d){} // call base class copy constructor };
no you can have a class with no public methods and even with a a private constructor public class Example { //constructor private Example(){ } }
Without a copy constructor the only way to copy an object would be to instantiate a new object (or use an existing object) and then assign another object's value to it. However, it would be very odd indeed to have a copy assignment operator without a matching copy constructor. If you have one, you must have both. If you do not need to copy an object of a particular class, however, you can simply delete both the copy constructor and the copy assigment operator for that class. Any attempt to copy or copy assign would then result in a compile-time error.
Default constructor: X()Copy constructor: X(const X&)Copy assignment operator: X& operator=(const X&)Move constructor: X(X&&)Move assignment operator: X& operator=(XX&)Destructor: ~X()By default, the compiler will generate each of these operations if a program uses it. However, if the programmer declares any constructor for a class, the default constructor for that class is not generated. If the programmer declares a copy or move operation, no copy, move or destructor is generated. If the programmer declares a destructor, no move operation is generated (a copy constructor is generated for backward compatibility).We can also suppress generation of specific operations with the =delete pseudo-initialiser:class X {public:X (const X&) =delete; // suppress the compiler-generated copy operationsX& operator=(const X&) =delete;// ...};
A class constructor initialises object member variables, ensuring the object is in a valid state from the point of instantiation. The destructor resets those same variables when the object falls from scope. Typically, the destructor is only required to release any memory allocated to any internal class pointers.