Thread: Struct Question

My compiler begged to differ saying no constructor in Vector3 matches a constructor with 0 arguments

Not about the code you posted. The code you posted was perfectly fine. The problem is in the way you implement constructors:

Code:

Camera::Camera(float angle, Vector3 center, Vector3 Los){
  Angle = angle;
  Center = center; 
  VectorLOS = Los;
}

This is wrong. You should always use constructor initializers when you can. The problem here is that it first tries to default-initialize the vectors (but can't, because there is no default constructor) and then reassigns them. This constructor should look like this:

Code:

Camera::Camera(float angle, Vector3 center, Vector3 Los)
  : Angle(angle), Center(center), VectorLOS(Los)
{}

This will work without giving Vector3 a default constructor. It can also save typing by removing the component-wise assignment you sometimes do.

Code:

Triangle::Triangle(Vector3 center, float width, float height)
  Center(center), Width(width), Height(height)
{}

For that matter, why do you ever do a component-wise assignment?

Code:

void Triangle::MoveTo(Vector3 newCenter){
  //Center.X = newCenter.X;
  //Center.Y = newCenter.Y;
  //Center.Z = newCenter.Z;
  Center = newCenter;
}

The last triangle was from the first tutorial, and before I added the Vector3 constructor, I will change it.

Thanks for the information about the constructors though I don't understand exactly what you are saying if I just did it without writing a 3 argument constructor I would not be able to do this...

Code:

Triangle ThisTriangle(Vector3(0.0f, 0.0f, 10.0f), 1.0f, 1.0f);

Which was the whole reason I added the constructor.

I will definitely adjust the class initializations to the way you suggested. Mind if I ask what scenario would break my implementation?

Originally Posted by Lesshardtofind

The last triangle was from the first tutorial, and before I added the Vector3 constructor, I will change it.

Thanks for the information about the constructors though I don't understand exactly what you are saying if I just did it without writing a 3 argument constructor I would not be able to do this...

Code:

Triangle ThisTriangle(Vector3(0.0f, 0.0f, 10.0f), 1.0f, 1.0f);

Which was the whole reason I added the constructor.

The 3-arg constructor is fine. I'm saying that you don't really need the 0-arg constructor.

I will definitely adjust the class initializations to the way you suggested. Mind if I ask what scenario would break my implementation?

Well, as you found out, with the implementation you have, you need the 0-arg constructor. There's also the chance that it's a bit slower. (Depends on the inlining and dead store elimination behavior of your compiler, really.) Also, if you ever have a const member, there is no other way to initialize it.

In the end it's simply good, idiomatic C++ to use the constructor initializers.

You need to expicitly write the default constructor if you:
A. Use it (intentionally or not), and
B. The class has other constructors which suppresses creation of the default contructor.

Definitely use constructor initialisation lists where you can.

Originally Posted by iMalc

You need to expicitly write the default constructor if you:
A. Use it (intentionally or not), and
B. The class has other constructors which suppresses creation of the default contructor.

B2. or the compiler-generated default constructor doesn't do what you want (e.g. value-initialize built-in types - the compiler-generated default constructor leaves them uninitialized).

You either need to specify a default location in the declaration of the constructor, or to declare (and define) a constructor with no arguments.

There are some exceptions, generation of the no-argument constructor by the compiler is suppressed if you supply another constructor.