构造函数 Foo::Foo 接收对 Foo 的引用,但不接收复制构造函数
假设我有一个不可复制类Foo
, 并且它的构造函数之一恰好收到了对 Foo 的引用。
class Foo
{
public:
Foo(Foo& parent) {...}
private:
void operator=(Foo); // disabled
...
};
编译器认为这是一个复制构造函数, 虽然它做了一些与复制完全无关的事情(因此赋值运算符被禁用)。
以这种方式定义构造函数有什么危险吗? 或者我应该人为地改变它的签名,例如使用指针而不是引用, 或者添加一个强制性的虚拟参数?
这是一些背景信息(可能不需要理解/回答我的问题)。
我有一个我自己编写的类库, 它充当用户代码和另一个库之间的连接。 另一个库提供了一项服务,为简洁起见,我将其称为“frobnicate”。 用户代码可以如下所示:
class UsefulObject: public mylib::Frobnicator
{
...
void DoStuff()
{
int x = ...
...
frobnicate(x); // it's important to allow simple syntax here
frobnicate(x + 1);
...
}
...
};
我想支持用户对象的层次结构:每个对象都包含在另一个对象(其父对象)中, 虽然有一些(在我的例子中是 5 个)顶级对象包含所有其他对象。
每个对象都有一个日志文件;我希望每个呼叫都记录在多个日志文件中, 沿着包含层次结构向上直到顶级对象。
我是这样实现的:
namespace mylib
{
class Frobnicator // provides the frobnication service
{
public:
Frobnicator(Frobnicator& parent): parent(parent) {}
protected:
virtual void frobnicate(int x) {
... // some logging code
parent->frobnicate(x);
}
private:
Frobnicator& parent;
};
namespace internal // users of mylib, please don't use this!
{
class TheUltimateFrobnicator: public Frobnicator
{
protected:
virtual void frobnicate(int x) {
the_other_library::frobnicate(x);
}
private:
TheUltimateFrobnicator(int id); // called by a factory or some such
};
}
}
Suppose i have a non-copyable class Foo
,
and one of its constructors just happens to receive a reference to Foo
.
class Foo
{
public:
Foo(Foo& parent) {...}
private:
void operator=(Foo); // disabled
...
};
The compiler thinks that this is a copy-constructor,
while it does something entirely unrelated to copying (so the assignment operator is disabled).
Is there any danger in defining the constructor this way,
or should i change its signature artificially, e.g. use pointer instead of reference,
or add a mandatory dummy parameter?
Here is some context (probably not required to understand/answer my question).
I have a class library that i have written myself,
which serves as a connection between user code and another library.
The other library provides a service that i call frobnicate for brevity.
User code can look like this:
class UsefulObject: public mylib::Frobnicator
{
...
void DoStuff()
{
int x = ...
...
frobnicate(x); // it's important to allow simple syntax here
frobnicate(x + 1);
...
}
...
};
I want to support an hierarchy of user objects: each object is contained in another (its parent),
while there are a few (in my case, 5) top-level objects that contain every other objects.
Each object has a log-file; i want each call to be logged in several log files,
up the containment hierarchy until a top-level object.
I have it implemented this way:
namespace mylib
{
class Frobnicator // provides the frobnication service
{
public:
Frobnicator(Frobnicator& parent): parent(parent) {}
protected:
virtual void frobnicate(int x) {
... // some logging code
parent->frobnicate(x);
}
private:
Frobnicator& parent;
};
namespace internal // users of mylib, please don't use this!
{
class TheUltimateFrobnicator: public Frobnicator
{
protected:
virtual void frobnicate(int x) {
the_other_library::frobnicate(x);
}
private:
TheUltimateFrobnicator(int id); // called by a factory or some such
};
}
}
如果你对这篇内容有疑问,欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论,获取更多帮助,或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱,如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论,将不能在第一时间通知您!
发布评论
评论(1)
不幸的是,这种构造函数的含义似乎存在歧义。我认为消除歧义的最直接方法是使用指针,
我知道很多人无论如何都希望参数是指针。顺便说一句,您自己将
parent.frobnicate
错误地输入为parent->frobnicate
。This appears to be an unfortunate ambiguity in the meaning of such a constructor. I think the most straight forward way to disambiguate this is to use a pointer
I know a lot of people who would expect the parameter to be a pointer anyway. Incidentally, you yourself mistyped
parent.frobnicate
asparent->frobnicate
.