0
When a constructor is invoked dynamically, the new operator allocates the required memory, initialises it according to the constructor, then returns a pointer to the allocation. The destructor is invoked by deleting the pointer. It wouldn't make any sense to return a pointer from a deletion.
What else can I help you with?
Constructor cannot be virtual but destructor can be virtual justify?
bcoz constructor cant be invoked
Constructor and destructor invocation in c?
Not possible in C.
What is difference between constructor and destructor in net?
dono lah bodo
How can you recognize a constructor in a 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");} };
What is the difference between the constructor to and destructor?
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.
What is the order of constructors and destructors of object?
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.
Why constructor and destructor cannot be made static?
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.
What are the advantages of constructor and destructor?
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.
A method that is automatically called when an instance of a class is created?
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; }
Which class methods does the compiler generate automatically if you don't provide them explicitly?
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;// ...};
Need of constructor in c plus plus?
There is no specific keyword for a constructor in C++. Simply define and declare a method of the class with the same name as the class and it will be a constructor. A constructor with no arguments is the default constructor, a constructor with one argument of class type is the copy constructor, and a constructor with one argument of some other type is the conversion constructor. You can provide other overloaded constructors if you want.
Is it mandatory to use the construtors in a class in c plus plus?
No. If you do not provide a default constructor, the compiler will provide a default constructor that simply allocates memory for the class, but it will not initialize the members of the class. If you do not provide a copy constructor, then the compiler will provide a copy constructor that allocates memory for the class, and then copies the member's data from class to class. This is bad if the class contains pointers, because only the pointer will be copied - the objects to which the pointers point will not be copied - and you could wind up deleting an object and then using it after deletion, with potentially devastating consequences. So, yes, it is mandatory, from a good practices point of view, and just plain mandatory when the class has pointers, to always provide a default constructor and a copy constructor, along with the appropriate destructor.
