CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++c++11default-constructordefault-argumentslist-initialization
Vincent
Vincent

Reputation: 60381

Default argument and empty list initialization

Consider the following code, of a simple class with a constructor taking an argument with a default value.

// Version 1
template <class T>
struct object1 {
    using type = T;
    constexpr object1(const type& val = type()): value(val) {}
    type value;
};

// Version 2
template <class T>
struct object2 {
    using type = T;
    constexpr object2(const type& val = {}): value(val) {}
    type value;
};

// Main
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
    using type = /* Something */;
    object1<type> x1;
    object2<type> x2;
    auto value1 = x1.value;
    auto value2 = x2.value;
    // Is there certain types for which value1 and value2 will be different?
    return 0;
}

Are the two versions of the constructor equivalent (will always produce the same result for any T), or they are different?

If they are different, could you provide an example of T for which the two would lead to different results?

Upvotes: 5

Views: 358

Answers (1)

user7860670
user7860670

Reputation: 37549

No, they are not equivalent. Second variant relies on implicitness of T's default constructor:

class foo
{
   public: explicit foo() {}
};

object1<foo> of{}; // ok
object2<foo> of{}; // error

Also I think it is not a good idea to call a copy constructor from a temporary instead of calling a default constructor without a temporary. That is it would be better to implement separate constructors:

template <class T>
struct object1 {
    using type = T;
    constexpr object1(void): value{} {}

    constexpr object1(const type& val): value{val} {}

    type value;
};

Upvotes: 7

Related Questions