CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++
NaMa
NaMa

Reputation: 123

Assignment of values to class objects in C++

I am sorry if it is duplicated question, but i didn't find a discussion of exactly this question. So, i am learning C++ and i don't understand the following issue with the assignment of values to class objects. I have this implementation of the class T:

class T
{
    int aInt;
    double aDouble;

    public:
    T():aInt(0),aDouble(0.){}

    T(int my_aInt, double my_aDouble):aInt(my_aInt), aDouble(my_aDouble){}

    T(int my_aInt):aInt(my_aInt), aDouble(0.){}

    T(double my_aDouble):aInt(0), aDouble(my_aDouble){}

    void set_aInt(int my_aInt){
        aInt = my_aInt;
    }

    void set_aDouble(double my_aDouble){
        aDouble = my_aDouble;
    }

    int get_aInt(){
        return aInt;
    }

    double get_aDouble(){
        return aDouble;
    }
};

I want to create the objects of this class and assign some values to them. I can do it in this way:

T tt1(-1, 5.), tt2(-1), tt3(5.);

and it works fine. Now i want to change the values assign to object tt1. I know that i can do it like this:

tt1.set_aInt(-3); // gives aInt = -3, aDouble = 0
tt1.set_aDouble(6.); // gives aInt = 0, aDouble = 6.

and it also works fine. But it seems there is another way to do it:

tt1 = -3; // gives aInt = -3, aDouble = 0
tt1 = 6.; // gives aInt = 0, aDouble = 6.
tt1 = (-3, 6.); // gives aInt = 0, aDouble = 6. - Why?

My first question is: Is tt1 = -3; equivalent to tt1.set_aInt(-3); and is it a good practice? The second question is what is wrong with tt1 = (-3, 6.); and why it sets value of aInt equals to 0 instead of -3?

Upvotes: 5

Views: 153

Answers (3)

pcarter
pcarter

Reputation: 1618

When you write tt1 = -3 this is equivalent to

T temp(-3);
tt1 = temp;

In C++, a constructor that takes a single argument acts as an implicit conversion operator. So the compiler looks at tt1 = -3 and sees that it can convert -3 to a T type using your constructor in a temporary variable and then use the default = operator to assign the value to tt1. The assignment to 6. works similarly except that the constructor that takes a single double is used. If you prepend the constructor with explicit it will not be used for conversions like this.

When you type tt1 = (-3, 6.) you are invoking the comma operator. In C/C++, (x,y) evaluates to y, so this is really equivalent to tt1 = 6.

Upvotes: 2

Venkat Sai
Venkat Sai

Reputation: 21

it is good to provide set_aInt so that you can track where the value passes on to in class where as it is equal as to pass tt1 = -3; while (-3,6) is passed to class T Probably the override as accepted the integer value but it erased it and passed the double value 6. due to which you faced a problem. While you initialize separately two instances of allocation take place and allocate value, But in single initialization the updated value which overrides previous value goes into the class

Upvotes: -4

midor
midor

Reputation: 5557

You should mark the single argument constructors explicit, because defining a single argument constructor also creates an implicit conversion from the argument type to the constructed type in C++, which is typically not desired.

tt1 = -3;

is thus equal to:

tt1 = T(-3);

i.e. it uses copy/move assignment. In the second case, the (-3, 6.) is just parenthesis around the statement -3, 6., where , is the sequence operator. The statement thus evaluates to 6., and the implicit conversions using the double constructor is chosen.

Upvotes: 7

Related Questions