Thread: should i always write a constructor for a class?

If you do not need to do explicit initialization of your object, you do not need to define a constructor.

You only need if you want to initializes an instance of its class which is how a class does anything.

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.

Originally Posted by cstryx

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 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.

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.

Originally Posted by jimblumberg

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.

But if you don't create any constructors the compiler will produce a default no argument constructor.


Jim

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.

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.

Originally Posted by cstryx

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?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by laserlight

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by cstryx

If not already by post #8 to show that this is not what I meant.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by cstryx

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.

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.

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".

Originally Posted by cstryx

Regardless if you are correct or not, I'll let both of you continue to argue that red vs green apple 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.

Now this is correct use of "regardless"