CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++stlstdvector
ash
ash

Reputation: 3474

Why doesn't C++ require a "new" statement to initialize std::vector?

Consider:

/* bar.h */
class bar{
    /* Standard stuff omitted */
    std::vector<my_obj*> foo;
};

/* bar.cpp */
bar::bar(){
    // foo = new std::vector<my_obj*>(); <-- Why don't I need this line??
    foo.push_back(new my_obj());
}

Why does this code work even though we didn't assign foo a new instance of std::vector?

Upvotes: 43

Views: 95656

Answers (7)

Loki Astari
Loki Astari

Reputation: 264571

Because foo is an object, not a pointer.

std::vector<my_obj*>    // This is an object
std::vector<my_obj*> *  // This is a pointer to an object
                    ^^^ // Notice the extra star.

new returns a pointer:

new std::vector<my_obj*>();  // returns std::vector<my_obj*> *

PS. Your vector should probably contain objects, not pointers.

std::vector<my_obj>   foo;
...
foo.push_back(my_obj());

Otherwise you will need to manually delete all the objects in the vector when it goes out of scope (when the containing object is destroyed). I.e., if you want to keep pointers in your vector you should do one of the following:

// 1. Manually delete all the elements in the vector when the object is destroyed.
~bar::bar()
{
    for(std::vector<my_obj*>::iterator loop = foo.begin(); loop != foo.end(); ++loop)
    {
        delete (*loop);
    }
}

// 2. Use a smart pointer:
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<my_obj> >  foo;

// 3. Use a smart container for pointers
boost::ptr_vector<my_obj>   foo

Upvotes: 6

AAlkhabbaz
AAlkhabbaz

Reputation: 197

std::vector in this library is not a pointer.

Upvotes: 1

Nicol Bolas
Nicol Bolas

Reputation: 473966

Because C++ is not C#/Java.

std::vector<my_obj*> foo;

This is a definition of an object, not a reference as in C#/Java. An object is a living instance of a type.

new std::vector<my_obj*>()

This expression returns a pointer. It returns a std::vector<my_obj*>*, which is not the same type as foo (the * at the end is what makes them different). foo is an object, std::vector<my_obj*>* is a pointer to an object.

Objects (rather than pointers or references) have specific lifetimes. If you create a pointer to an object with new, the lifetime of the object pointed to will be until you explicitly call delete. If you create an object as a member of another object, then that inner object's lifetime will (more or less) mirror the outer object's lifetime. If you create an object on the stack (a parameter or variable at function scope), then its lifetime is the current scope of that variable name.

Upvotes: 65

Pavan Yalamanchili
Pavan Yalamanchili

Reputation: 12109

std::vector<my_obj *> foo is different from std::vector<my_obj *> *foo. The second case will require you to use new while the first wll not.

Upvotes: 1

crashmstr
crashmstr

Reputation: 28573

You do not need to use new on foo, since foo is a vector, not a pointer to a vector (i.e. std::vector<my_obj*> *foo).

If you are coming from Java or C#, you may want to consider using std::vector<my_obj> (a vector of objects) instead of a vector of pointers. It really depends on what you want to do.

Upvotes: 1

ScarletAmaranth
ScarletAmaranth

Reputation: 5101

Because std::vector does that for you :) You don't have a pointer to std::vector, you're simply setting up an object of type std::vector, which internally allocates memory for you.

Upvotes: 3

Oliver Charlesworth
Oliver Charlesworth

Reputation: 272657

Because bar contains a std::vector, not a std::vector *.

It's really no different to something like this:

class bar
{
    int foo;  // No need to create a "new int"
};

Upvotes: 9

Related Questions