no default constractor ....

Code:

---

#include "stdafx.h"
#include<string>
using namespace std;

struct student1{
const string name;
const double salary;
const string student1::getName();
const double student1::getSalary();
};


#include "stdafx.h"
#include<iostream>
#include<string>
#include"student1.h"
using namespace std;

const string name = "Mike";
const double salary = 123.3;

const string student1::getName()
{
      return name;
}

const double student1::getSalary()
{
      return salary;
}



#include "stdafx.h"
#include"student1.h"
#include<string>
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;

int main()
{
        student1 me;
    cout << me.getName();   
    cout << me.getSalary();
        return 0;
}

 error C2512: 'student1' : no appropriate default constructor available

---

Whats the problem here??? and why do I have to have a constractor when using a struct...

The name and salary member variables are const, so if you do not initialise them in a constructor, they will always only contain garbage.

I guess you think that:

Code:

---

const string name = "Mike";
const double salary = 123.3;

---

initialises them, but actually, you just create two global constants that have nothing to do with student1.

So I MUST have a constractor right???

Yes, or you can make those member variables non-const.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mixalissen

So I MUST have a constractor right???

---

More specifically, a default constructor: one which can be invoked with no arguments.

And you must also initialise the variables in the struct's member initialisation list as I don't believe you can do it in-function if it's a purely a const data member. You should probably make it a class really. It's just my style but I only use structs for data storing. Soon as functions are introduced I call it a class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twomers

And you must also initialise the variables in the struct's member initialisation list as I don't believe you can do it in-function if it's a purely a const data member. You should probably make it a class really. It's just my style but I only use structs for data storing. Soon as functions are introduced I call it a class.

---

yep const members and references are to be in initialization list only and by the way just putting a constructor and destructor in a struct does not make it move away from its pod definition in any way its okay to have (con/de)structors in a struct without having them make a class its not the point of choice either since they are still behaving like a struct whereas when you think about class they mean a hell lot more and that's why we have struct and class both keywords in c++

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by (::)

yep const members and references are to be in initialization list only and by the way just putting a constructor and destructor in a struct does not make it move away from its pod definition in any way its okay to have (con/de)structors in a struct without having them make a class its not the point of choice either since they are still behaving like a struct whereas when you think about class they mean a hell lot more and that's why we have struct and class both keywords in c++

---

Rubbish. The only difference between a class and a struct in C++ is the default access (class members and bases are private by default, and struct members and bases are public).

A class or struct with a user-defined destructor is also, by definition, not a POD-type. From the C++ standard; "A POD-struct is an aggregate class that has no non-static data members of type pointer to member, non-POD-struct, non-POD-union (or array of such types) or reference, and has no user-defined copy assignment operator and no user-defined destructor. Similarly, a POD-union is an aggregate union that has no non-static data members of type pointer to member, non-POD-struct, non-POD-union (or array of such types) or reference, and has no user-defined copy assignment operator and no user-defined destructor. A POD class is a class that is either a POD-struct or a POD-union."

i am not saying class and struct are any more different than they actually are. one thing. other thing is just adding (con/de)structors to them does not mean that turn them into a class. other thing.

period.

Quote:

---

other thing is just adding (con/de)structors to them does not mean that turn them into a class.

---

I am not sure what you mean by "class", but grumpy quoted the C++ Standard to you. Your statement that a struct with a user defined destructor is a POD struct is simply incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laserlight

I am not sure what you mean by "class", but grumpy quoted the C++ Standard to you. Your statement that a struct with a user defined destructor is a POD struct is simply incorrect.

---

i was using pod in a liberal sense and not literal sense with (con/de)structors we just have convenient ways of initializing and cleanup without having to add extra methods to struct and having the user to call them at right times

Sure, we can think of a struct as a POD. It's certainly what I do, but in the eyes of the standard, a struct isn't a POD, so one must be aware of this because some utilize the fact that struct == class (though visibility is, by default, not the same).