In the constructor for myClass, in the code below, I initialize ms
with ms({4,5})
.
#include <iostream>
class myClass {
private:
struct myStruct {
int val1;
int val2;
};
public:
myStruct ms;
myClass() : ms({4,5}){} // This is where I initialize ms!
};
int main(){
myClass mc;
std::cout << mc.ms.val1 << " " << mc.ms.val2 << std::endl;
return 0;
};
However, we are in the member initialization list, so the arguments to ms
are the arguments to the ms's constructor. What happens here,
essentially, is that we use the so-called "list initialization" to
create an unnamed (anonymous) myStruct
object: "{4,5}", and then we
pass that object to the constructor of ms
. So in principle, the
anonymous intermediate object is created, copied to initialize ms
,
and then destroyed (although I'm pretty sure that the compiler knows
better and initializes ms
directly; but there is still the
semantic difference). I was told that, instead of ms({4,5})
I could simply do
ms(4,5)
and avoid making an intermediate object. However, when I do this, I get the following output:
g++ -g -std=c++11 -Wall temp.cpp -o temp
temp.cpp: In constructor ‘myClass::myClass()’:
temp.cpp:12:21: error: no matching function for call to ‘myClass::myStruct::myStruct(int, int)’
myClass() : ms(4,5){}
^
temp.cpp:5:10: note: candidate: myClass::myStruct::myStruct()
struct myStruct {
^
temp.cpp:5:10: note: candidate expects 0 arguments, 2 provided
temp.cpp:5:10: note: candidate: constexpr myClass::myStruct::myStruct(const myClass::myStruct&)
temp.cpp:5:10: note: candidate expects 1 argument, 2 provided
temp.cpp:5:10: note: candidate: constexpr myClass::myStruct::myStruct(myClass::myStruct&&)
temp.cpp:5:10: note: candidate expects 1 argument, 2 provided
makefile:15: recipe for target 'temp' failed
make: *** [temp] Error 1
So, to be clear, I am wondering what the best practice is, in terms of initialising a struct object in a class constructor. All help is much appreciated!