5 ms·

Instead of using a constructor you can use a constructor method e.g.: class Foo { public: static std::optional<Foo> create(); priv

by dan00 9y ago

Instead of using a constructor you can use a constructor method e.g.: class Foo { public: static std::optional<Foo> create(); private: Foo(); };

maccard 9y ago
In general if you're not using exceptions, you're not going to be using features that haven't actually been published in a formal standard (optional). This now means that you can't use any constructors, so how do you have Containers of foo?
- imron 9y ago
  > you're not going to be using features that haven't actually been published in a formal standard (optional). So you then have things like: class Foo { public: static Foo* create(); ... }; ... Foo* foo = Foo::create() if ( foo != nullptr ) ... > so how do you have Containers of foo? std::vector<Foo*> Not saying either of those are better than the alternative (I prefer using exceptions and RAII), just pointing out what I've seen in real world projects.
  - mikepurvis 9y ago
    I don't think this is the proposal. The proposal is that the object contains a genuine constructor that only does the bare-bones "safe" stuff, and then it has a separate non-static method that does the might-fail initialization. So: class Foo { public: Foo(); bool initialize(); // returns success ... }; ... Foo foo; if ( !foo->initialize() ) { // handle error } This also means you can break up your initialization so that you drive the risky pieces from outside the object, rather than monolithically from within. This has a further benefit for testing, since you can use your major objects without fully initializing the entire world that they depend on.
    - imron 9y ago
      It was almost the exact proposal specified by my grandparent post except using a pointer rather than an optional. It's also a technique that is widely used. See for example the cocos2d-x game library. The benefit of such a technique is that you can then make the constructor private, making it impossible to create an object and not also call the initialize() method.
      - gpderetta 9y ago
        It is very different from having a static method returning an optional, which guarantees that you can access the optional (with at least an assert in debug mode) only if the object is actually successfully constructed. Using a separate initialize member function means that you may have objects in a zombie state laying around after a failed construction which lead to all kind of initialization order issues (you might get a pointer to the object, but is it initialized?). Also you need to remember to check the return type, which also need to be meaningful (does it return false on failure? or it returns 0 on success?). Two phase initialization is a known antipattern which is, unfortunately, widely used and lead to all kind of pains. Friends do not let friends use 2PI. edit: sorry, I misread your comment, you were referring to the static function returning a pointer, which as you note is almost the same as the optional version. It forces heap allocation though, which is bad.
        imron 9y ago
        I agree that 2PI leads to all kinds of pain, but what I meant is not 2PI. Here's a more complete example: class Foo { public: static Foo* create() { Foo* result = new Foo(); //exceptions disabled so new can return nullptr if ( result ) { //configure result here } return result; } private: Foo() {} }; ... Foo* badFoo = new Foo(); // compiler error because Foo() is private Foo* foo = Foo::create(); //all good, no 2PI and can't forget to call initialize code if ( foo ) //check for non-null, note, if using an optional you'd also need a similar check { ... } Now the only way to create a Foo object is through the create() function and there is no separated initialize - it all happens in the same place. This pattern of using a static create method is explicitly designed to avoid 2PI and is very common, especially in codebases that disable exceptions. Also note that I'm not personally advocating using it, just that it is commonly used to avoid 2PI.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dan00 9y ago
  My bad, I thought std::optional is part of C++14, it seems to be part of the next standard C++17, but there's still boost::optional. About the container issue: if you have objects that might fail during the creation it seems like a bad idea to allow things like: std::vector<Foo> foos(10); Having a separate initialization method which might fail - like proposed by others - is another option, but this means your objects need some kind of internal initialization state, and whenever you're handling such an object you never can be absolute sure that it's in a valid state. I'm quite a big fan of making invalid state not representable in an object and handling failure cases as early as possible. What the create method returns depends heavily on your use case. If the returned objects can always be allocated on the heap, then a pointer or unique_ptr can be returned.
ryandrake 9y ago
How would you handle failure in copy constructors?
- dan00 9y ago
  Most likely having an explicit copy method instead of a copy constructor.

by dan00 9y ago

Instead of using a constructor you can use a constructor method e.g.: class Foo { public: static std::optional<Foo> create(); private: Foo(); };

maccard 9y ago

In general if you're not using exceptions, you're not going to be using features that haven't actually been published in a formal standard (optional). This now means that you can't use any constructors, so how do you have Containers of foo?

imron 9y ago
> you're not going to be using features that haven't actually been published in a formal standard (optional). So you then have things like: class Foo { public: static Foo* create(); ... }; ... Foo* foo = Foo::create() if ( foo != nullptr ) ... > so how do you have Containers of foo? std::vector<Foo*> Not saying either of those are better than the alternative (I prefer using exceptions and RAII), just pointing out what I've seen in real world projects.
- mikepurvis 9y ago
  I don't think this is the proposal. The proposal is that the object contains a genuine constructor that only does the bare-bones "safe" stuff, and then it has a separate non-static method that does the might-fail initialization. So: class Foo { public: Foo(); bool initialize(); // returns success ... }; ... Foo foo; if ( !foo->initialize() ) { // handle error } This also means you can break up your initialization so that you drive the risky pieces from outside the object, rather than monolithically from within. This has a further benefit for testing, since you can use your major objects without fully initializing the entire world that they depend on.
  - imron 9y ago
    It was almost the exact proposal specified by my grandparent post except using a pointer rather than an optional. It's also a technique that is widely used. See for example the cocos2d-x game library. The benefit of such a technique is that you can then make the constructor private, making it impossible to create an object and not also call the initialize() method.
    - gpderetta 9y ago
      It is very different from having a static method returning an optional, which guarantees that you can access the optional (with at least an assert in debug mode) only if the object is actually successfully constructed. Using a separate initialize member function means that you may have objects in a zombie state laying around after a failed construction which lead to all kind of initialization order issues (you might get a pointer to the object, but is it initialized?). Also you need to remember to check the return type, which also need to be meaningful (does it return false on failure? or it returns 0 on success?). Two phase initialization is a known antipattern which is, unfortunately, widely used and lead to all kind of pains. Friends do not let friends use 2PI. edit: sorry, I misread your comment, you were referring to the static function returning a pointer, which as you note is almost the same as the optional version. It forces heap allocation though, which is bad.
      - imron 9y ago
        I agree that 2PI leads to all kinds of pain, but what I meant is not 2PI. Here's a more complete example: class Foo { public: static Foo* create() { Foo* result = new Foo(); //exceptions disabled so new can return nullptr if ( result ) { //configure result here } return result; } private: Foo() {} }; ... Foo* badFoo = new Foo(); // compiler error because Foo() is private Foo* foo = Foo::create(); //all good, no 2PI and can't forget to call initialize code if ( foo ) //check for non-null, note, if using an optional you'd also need a similar check { ... } Now the only way to create a Foo object is through the create() function and there is no separated initialize - it all happens in the same place. This pattern of using a static create method is explicitly designed to avoid 2PI and is very common, especially in codebases that disable exceptions. Also note that I'm not personally advocating using it, just that it is commonly used to avoid 2PI.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dan00 9y ago
My bad, I thought std::optional is part of C++14, it seems to be part of the next standard C++17, but there's still boost::optional. About the container issue: if you have objects that might fail during the creation it seems like a bad idea to allow things like: std::vector<Foo> foos(10); Having a separate initialization method which might fail - like proposed by others - is another option, but this means your objects need some kind of internal initialization state, and whenever you're handling such an object you never can be absolute sure that it's in a valid state. I'm quite a big fan of making invalid state not representable in an object and handling failure cases as early as possible. What the create method returns depends heavily on your use case. If the returned objects can always be allocated on the heap, then a pointer or unique_ptr can be returned.

ryandrake 9y ago

How would you handle failure in copy constructors?

dan00 9y ago
Most likely having an explicit copy method instead of a copy constructor.