I know that visual studio do this for me as a default.
I know that visual studio do this for me as a default.
If you do not need to do explicit initialization of your object, you do not need to define a constructor.
What can this strange device be?
When I touch it, it gives forth a sound
It's got wires that vibrate and give music
What can this thing be that I found?
A default constructor is already pre-defined regardless (if there are none defined), unless you have an overloaded one I believe. Otherwise, the object would never be able to be created/instantiated, because no constructor can be called.
You only need if you want to initializes an instance of its class which is how a class does anything.
UPDATE! As of 10/6/2014
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2sj6qwpfbb...t%201.zip?dl=0
Just find the application file and double click it. Controls are (Arrow keys) (Z) (Z + arrow key) (Spacebar)
Don't play this crappy update. Wait for the newest one which is far more impressive.
Official Sonic character poll hosted by some guy at Sega..... Sega of America. Vote for blaze because she OP.
http://blogs.sega.com/2015/08/28/the...down-heats-up/
In general, if the default constructor is sufficient, you don't need to define your own empty one. You may want to define one if your class contains primitive types that would need to be initialized (although you can just initialize the members inline in C++11), or if there's some other setup you class needs to do.
You also don't get a default constructor if any of the class members can't be default constructed, such as if there are reference members.
Last edited by King Mir; 08-28-2014 at 10:42 PM.
It is too clear and so it is hard to see.
A dunce once searched for fire with a lighted lantern.
Had he known what fire was,
He could have cooked his rice much sooner.
No a default constructor is only provided by the compiler if there are no other constructors provided. If you provide a constructor with any number of arguments the default constructor will not be provided, and you will need to provide the no-argument constructor if there is a need for this constructor.A default constructor is already pre-defined regardless
But if you don't create any constructors the compiler will produce a default no argument constructor.
Jim
I'd go so far as to call it a mistake to provide a constructor when it would be generated for you, and has no work to do besides what it does when you let it generate this on its own.
I.e. More code for the sake of more code, is a bad thing.
My homepage
Advice: Take only as directed - If symptoms persist, please see your debugger
Linus Torvalds: "But it clearly is the only right way. The fact that everybody else does it some other way only means that they are wrong"
0.o... Ok, firstly thanks for quoting part of my post and ignoring the rest as though you're trying to say that I'm wrong, however this *is*, exactly as I said. Read my post again and see my remark stating "(if there are none defined)"...
Did you only read half of my post? Please read the full thing next time, just some advice.
Last edited by cstryx; 08-29-2014 at 07:56 PM.
I suggest you take your own advice, and re-read your posts before you post them. Your post IMO is very misleading.Did you only read half of my post? Please read the full thing next time, just some advice.
Look at those highlighted sections, to me you're saying you really aren't sure and are guessing. Even that "(if there are none defined) is misleading. What is that "none" you're talking about, the default no argument constructor or all constructors?A default constructor is already pre-defined regardless (if there are none defined), unless you have an overloaded one I believe.
Jim
I'm confident that the majority would find it clear enough. I proofread all of my posts. You still quoted the only part relevant to proving your own side, and completely ignored the most critical part of my post, making an assumption without asking the questions if you weren't clear on what I was saying. You can cherry-pick the small irrelevancies without looking at the big picture of a post all you want, but what you're essentially trying to debate here is not much different than saying that a green and a red apple aren't the same fruit because they are a different color.
I think the problem with is the use of "regardless" with two exceptions: if it were true "regardless", then there are no exceptions. But obviously the reasonable way to resolve this contradiction is to suppose that the word "regardless" was not used correctly and hence should be ignored.
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart WayOriginally Posted by Bjarne Stroustrup (2000-10-14)
Should I alter my sentence to suit both of your ego's then since I didn't realize that this forum was supposed to be about English Grammar? :S
There you go. My god.A default constructor is already pre-defined regardless (assuming there are none defined)
I was actually pointing out that your sentence is quite easy to correctly interpret despite the incorrect use of the word "regardless", but apparently your ego does not permit you to acknowledge that.Originally Posted by cstryx
EDIT:
No, your fix is still wrong: replacing "if" with "assuming" without removing "regardless" retains the contradiction/oxymoron. But don't bother: anyone who was somehow confused by that would already have doubts clarified by the time he/she reads post #12.
Last edited by laserlight; 08-31-2014 at 09:22 AM.
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart WayOriginally Posted by Bjarne Stroustrup (2000-10-14)
If not already by post #8 to show that this is not what I meant. I'm going to continue to ignore all of the senseless cherry picking that you do in the future however, there's no point in bothering with it, since I'm only interested in this forum for programming. Regardless if you are correct or not, I'll let both of you continue to argue that "red vs green apple" analogy while I can just agree that an apple is an apple and get along with eating that apple instead of debating what it is and stalling time so to speak... Ego has nothing to do with carelessness--I'm not here to become a grammar teacher, and lots of people put notes inside of brackets that pertain to that part of the text, which ARE NOT supposed to be part of the original text, even though that might not be grammatically correct. Would you like me to explicitly define a "NOTE:" in the beginning and italicize it now? :S
Both of you seem more concerned about my grammar here instead of accepting initially that this was not what I meant. As I said, I have rarely had this issue with that style of syntax for my writing. You might also want to understand that not all people here are fluently English.
Last edited by cstryx; 08-31-2014 at 09:57 AM.
Exactly.Originally Posted by cstryx
You don't get it, do you? I was supporting you by pointing out that a reader should have been able to determine what you meant without further clarification, even though there was an extra word that could theoretically confuse a reader.Originally Posted by cstryx
If this is "senseless cherry picking", then the correct assertion is that your statement contained a contradiction and thus is simply wrong, which was jimblumberg's point in post #6. Since you disagree, then you should agree that this is not "senseless cherry picking".
Now this is correct use of "regardless"Originally Posted by cstryx
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart WayOriginally Posted by Bjarne Stroustrup (2000-10-14)