multiple copy constructors

[Glen Able]

Any ideas why compilers seem to give warnings about multiple copy
constructors e.g.

class A
{
public:
A(A& a);
A(const A& a);
};


Also, are there any other forms which would constitute a copy ctor?

thanks.

[David Rubin]

Re: multiple copy constructors

Glen Able wrote:
[color=blue]
> Any ideas why compilers seem to give warnings about multiple copy
> constructors e.g.
>
> class A
> {
> public:
> A(A& a);
> A(const A& a);
> };[/color]

The problem is that a two functions cannot be differentiated solely on the basis
of the 'constness' of their arguments.

/david

--
Andre, a simple peasant, had only one thing on his mind as he crept
along the East wall: 'Andre, creep... Andre, creep... Andre, creep.'
-- unknown

[Guillaume Brocker]

Re: multiple copy constructors

David Rubin wrote:
[color=blue]
> Glen Able wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Any ideas why compilers seem to give warnings about multiple copy
>> constructors e.g.
>>
>> class A
>> {
>> public:
>> A(A& a);
>> A(const A& a);
>> };[/color]
>
> The problem is that a two functions cannot be differentiated solely on
> the basis of the 'constness' of their arguments.[/color]

That's right. Furthermore, IMHO, it's non sens to pass a non constant
parameter to a copy constructor, since the copy constructor's role is to
only make a *copy* of the passed parameter.

So there is absolutely no reason to have a constructor like this:

A(A& a)

--
Guillaume Brocker

[John Harrison]

Re: multiple copy constructors

>[color=blue]
> That's right. Furthermore, IMHO, it's non sens to pass a non constant
> parameter to a copy constructor, since the copy constructor's role is to
> only make a *copy* of the passed parameter.
>
> So there is absolutely no reason to have a constructor like this:
>
> A(A& a)
>[/color]

std::auto_ptr has a copy constructor exactly like that.

It's not common, but it is legal and very occasionally useful.

john

[Rob Williscroft]

Re: multiple copy constructors

David Rubin wrote in news:c12p1g$fa5 @netnews.proxy. lucent.com:
[color=blue]
> Glen Able wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Any ideas why compilers seem to give warnings about multiple copy
>> constructors e.g.
>>
>> class A
>> {
>> public:
>> A(A& a);
>> A(const A& a);
>> };[/color]
>
> The problem is that a two functions cannot be differentiated solely on
> the basis of the 'constness' of their arguments.[/color]

No, all the usual overload resolution rules apply:

#include <iostream>

struct X
{
X() { std::cerr << "X::X()\n"; }
X( X const & ) { std::cerr << "X::X( X const & )\n"; }
X( X & ) { std::cerr << "X::X( X & )\n"; }
};


X f() { return X(); }


int main()
{
using namespace std;
X const x = f();
X y( x );
X z( y );
}

I get:
X::X()
X::X( X const & )
X::X( X & )

With all 5 compilers I tried, for some reason VC 7.1 gives
the warning descibed by the OP. I can't think of a good reason
for it, but VC 7.1 has a whole bunch of backward compatability
features that often don't make sense, so maybe thats it.

Rob.
--

http://www.victim-prime.dsl.pipex.com/

[David Rubin]

Re: multiple copy constructors

Rob Williscroft wrote:
[color=blue]
> David Rubin wrote in news:c12p1g$fa5 @netnews.proxy. lucent.com:
>
>[color=green]
>>Glen Able wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Any ideas why compilers seem to give warnings about multiple copy
>>>constructo rs e.g.
>>>
>>>class A
>>>{
>>>public:
>>> A(A& a);
>>> A(const A& a);
>>>};[/color]
>>
>>The problem is that a two functions cannot be differentiated solely on
>>the basis of the 'constness' of their arguments.[/color]
>
>
> No, all the usual overload resolution rules apply:[/color]

[snip][color=blue]
> With all 5 compilers I tried, for some reason VC 7.1 gives
> the warning descibed by the OP. I can't think of a good reason
> for it, but VC 7.1 has a whole bunch of backward compatability
> features that often don't make sense, so maybe thats it.[/color]

You're right. After I posted my comment, I tried an example only to find I was
incorrect. Thanks,

/david

--
Andre, a simple peasant, had only one thing on his mind as he crept
along the East wall: 'Andre, creep... Andre, creep... Andre, creep.'
-- unknown