Call constructor within constructor. How to?

How do i call a constructor of a class from another overloaded constructor?
Example:

Code:

class Stuff{
    int a;
    Stuff(int n=0) : a(n){        
    }
    Stuff(Stuff& s) : Stuff(s.a){
    }
};

My compiler (MSVC++6) states that Stuff(int) is not a member of Stuff if I try to call if from Stuff(Stuff&). This example is only to show what I'm trying to ask. But I'd like possibly to call other constructors when there's a reasonable set of variables. In Java we can use the this() operator.

I could create a initialization function to receive n arguments, being this function called by all constructors with different parameters, but that's not as efficient as calling directly the constructors for the class variables.

So I ask is there a way of calling the constructor?

Hello,

I do know some about how constructors work, though only to this knowledge.

Q. How can I make a constructor call another constructor as a primitive?
A. As far as I know, you can't.
If you call another constructor, the compiler initializes a temporary local object; it does not initialize this object. You can combine both constructors by using a default parameter, or you can share their common code in a private init() member function.

More info here:

• Constructors [10.3]
• Constructors [10.8]
• Thinking In C++

Though, what you may be looking for could be different. In that case, you can learn the essentials of what can and cannot be done with overloading here: C++ Overloading.


- Stack Overflow

Originally Posted by Stack Overflow

You can combine both constructors by using a default parameter, or you can share their common code in a private init() member function.

Is the same as...

I could create a initialization function to receive n arguments, being this function called by all constructors with different parameters, but that's not as efficient as calling directly the constructors for the class variables.

Anyway, I'll just have to copy/paste chuncks of code to call variables constructors.

But now that I'm thinking I can use a base class with inheritance

Code:

class base_stuff{
    /*all variables here*/
    int a;
    base_stuff() : a(0){}
}
class Stuff : protected base_stuff{
    Stuff(int n=0) : base_stuff(), a(n){        
    }
    Stuff(Stuff& s) : base_stuff(), a(s.a){
    }
};

which could simplify the constructors call.

By the way, when calling the a() constructor from Stuff, I override the one from base_stuff right?

This

Code:

class Stuff{
    int a;
    Stuff(int n=0) : a(n){        
    }
    Stuff(Stuff& s) : Stuff(s.a){
    }
};

could be accomplished by this:

Code:

class Stuff{
    int a;
    Stuff(int n=0) : a(n){        
    }
    Stuff(Stuff& s) : a(s.a){
    }
};

Originally Posted by xErath

So I ask is there a way of calling the constructor?

Yes, I can think of a somewhat ugly way to to this, using placement new:

Code:

class Stuff{
    int a;
    Stuff(int n=0) : a(n){        
    }
    Stuff(Stuff& s){
      new (this) Stuff (s.a);
    }
};

That should work, but I'm not recommending it. Perhaps some sort of initialization method would be better.

Placement new just calls an arbitrary constructor with an extra pointer argument, which becomes the 'this'-pointer within the called constructor.

Sang-drax, It isn't that ugly, but then the 2nd construdtor is called by that method, all variables are constructed, and probably they aren't de-constructed before being re-constructed. And is a "ugly" way to call a initialization function.

jlou i know that...

This example is only to show what I'm trying to ask. But I'd like possibly to call other constructors when there's a reasonable set of variables.

Hum... on to the inheritance stuff then...

If you need to create an object for a class I would code a Create() function and do the init and creation in there, not in the constructor for the class.

what i typically do is create and 'interface' constructor to 'parse' the parameters and then pass those values to a private member function....

i'm not sure how efficient it is, but you can always inline private function

ex:

Stuff(int x=0){ BackgroundConstructor(x); }
Stuff(Stuff &s){ BackgroundConstructor(s.a); }
inline BackgroundConsuctor(int a){ this->myValue = a;}

Originally Posted by xErath

jlou i know that...

This example is only to show what I'm trying to ask. But I'd like possibly to call other constructors when there's a reasonable set of variables.

Hum... on to the inheritance stuff then...

I knew you knew that. My badly expressed point was that I'd like you to show a better example of what you are trying to do, since I get the feeling that there might be a simpler answer.

You still didn't get very well what I meant, although I apreciate your answers.
When a class is instantiated, memory is allocated and then it is constructed. The construction works like this:
1# if class is derived construct base class
2# construct variables within class
3# call class' constructor.
To illustrate this behaviour, look at this example:

Code:

#include <iostream>
class A{
public:
	A(){std::cout  << "A constructed\n";	}
};
class B{
public:
	B(){std::cout  << "B constructed\n";	}
};
class C{
public:
	C(){std::cout  << "C constructed\n";	}
};
class D: public C{
public:
	A a;
	B b;
	D(){std::cout  << "D constructed\n";	}
};
int main(){
	D d;
	return 0;
}

Produces the following output:

Code:

C constructed
A constructed
B constructed
D constructed

And if you look closely when the body of the D constructor is executed, the variables and base class have already been initialized, so calling a initialization method would be a inefficient way of doing what I sugesting, Because that would imply deconstructing the previous constructed variables, and then re-construct them, or (what would happen) making assignements with operator=, which the programmer shoudn't need to provide for every class variable within the main class scope.

What I'm saying is: calling a constructor from another constructor to change the construction behaviour.

But now that I see there's not much to it, my answer will be using the base class method, or copy/paste of chunks of code. Thank you for your time

It sounds like you are only trying to avoid copying the code from the initializer list. Is this true? Is it really that large of a chunk of code?

I'd still prefer to see a real example that shows the situation. Of course, you are free to solve the problem however you want, I am just not convinced that the common solution isn't sufficient.