template<typename T, size_t size>
class container {
public:
container() //default constructor.
{
}
template<typename cT, size_t cs> // Copy
constructor 1
container(const container<cT, cs>& rhs)
{
........
}
container(const container& rhs) // Copy
constructor 2
{
..........
}
private: ..... //
private members defined here.
};
/Peter
This question is already incorrect by itself. There's only one copy
constructor in your class. It is constructor 2. Template 1 does not
define any copy constructors. It can be used to generate _conversion_
constructors, but not copy constructors.
> And if you can explain the difference
> between the 1 and 2 below would be great?
I don't really see what needs to be explained here. These constructors
take arguments of different types. So the right one will be chosen
depending on the type of the argument used during construction. That's
basically it.
> template<typename T, size_t size>
> class container {
>
> public:
> container() //default constructor.
> {
> }
>
> template<typename cT, size_t cs> // Copy
> constructor 1
> container(const container<cT, cs>& rhs)
> {
> ........
> }
>
> container(const container& rhs) // Copy
> constructor 2
> {
> ..........
> }
>
>
> private: ..... //
> private members defined here.
> };
--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich
> <ravajappa.go...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi! Can somebody tell me when does copy constructor 1 or 2
> > gets called in a template class below? And if you can
> > explain the difference between the 1 and 2 below would be
> > great?
> > template<typename T, size_t size>
> > class container {
> > public:
> > container() //default constructor.
> > {
> > }
> > template<typename cT, size_t cs> // Copy
> > constructor 1
> > container(const container<cT, cs>& rhs)
> > {
> > ........
> > }
> > container(const container& rhs) // Copy
> > constructor 2
> > {
> > ..........
> > }
> > private: ..... //
> > private members defined here.
> > }
> The second constructor is the default copy-constructor and
> will be called whenever a normal copy constructor would
> normally be called.
That's not quite true. The only real effect of the second
(other than those associated with any constructor) is to
suppress the automatic generation of the copy constructor by the
compiler. In any given situation, which constructor is called
will depend on operator overload resolution, and it is quite
possible to design a class so that the template constructor is
called for copying. (Admittedly, this is a rather exotic point,
and it's not likely to affect most people's code.)
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james...@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
While I was aware of your first point, your second point is new to me.
Could you give me an example of how to write the copy-constructor in a
way that it will not be called to construct an object from an object
of the same type, using my generic templated constructor instead? I
have wanted to do so a few times but thought it was not possible and
instead ended up with two identical pieces of code.
/Peter