Can we have private constructors and destructors

[Rajesh Garg]

Can we have private constructors and destructors? IF yes what is the
use of such constructors or destructors.... .in the sense where can
these be implemented in a system......... ........

I have an idea that we can have private constructors and destructors
but am not able to find a situation where they can be used...

Regards
RVG
rajeshgarg@opus soft.com

[Maik Schmidt]

Re: Can we have private constructors and destructors

Rajesh Garg wrote:[color=blue]
> Can we have private constructors and destructors? IF yes what is the
> use of such constructors or destructors.... .in the sense where can
> these be implemented in a system......... ........
>
> I have an idea that we can have private constructors and destructors
> but am not able to find a situation where they can be used...[/color]

Typically you declare methods private to prevent others from calling
them. If you declare a constructor private, you prevent others from
creating objects of your class from the outside. This makes sense under
some circumstances, e.g. if you implement the so called singleton
pattern. This pattern makes sure, that only one object of a certain
class exists, so you have to control explicitly, who creates that one
and only object.

Cheers,

<maik/>

[David White]

Re: Can we have private constructors and destructors

Rajesh Garg <raj_chins@redi ffmail.com> wrote in message
news:14215add.0 307212038.64d84 c57@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> Can we have private constructors and destructors?[/color]

Yes, in fact in a class they are private by default if you don't specify the
access rights.
[color=blue]
> IF yes what is the
> use of such constructors or destructors.... .in the sense where can
> these be implemented in a system......... ........[/color]

You might use them if there is allowed to be only one instance of a class
(called a singleton). You allow a single function to access the constructor
(either a friend or a public static member function), and it will only
create an instance if it hasn't already done so. You don't want just anyone
to be able to delete that one instance, so you could make the destructor
private as well.

DW

[Victor Bazarov]

Re: Can we have private constructors and destructors

"Tamer Higazi" <tamer.higazi@w eb.de> wrote...[color=blue]
> As long as i know are constructors and destructors only provided in an
> PUBLIC Area to give parameters for a class.
>
> All constructors and destructors MUST be declarated "public" to get
> access to it.[/color]

Nonsense. Just like other members of the class, constructors and
destructors can have access specifiers which limit the places where
objects of that class can be created or destroyed. "Private" access
specifier limits those places to either other member functions of
the same class or friends (classes or functions).
[color=blue]
> The private area are class variables and methods which can be called
> from public methods only.[/color]

No. They can be just as well called from private member functions
or from functions declared as friends or from member functions of
classes declared as friends.
[color=blue]
> But you won't be able to call these methods
> and variables outside the class in the "main" part.[/color]

Yes, that's the main idea.
[color=blue]
> Konstruktors and Destruktors are only good if you want to give special
> values on the way to a class. Even you can overload them, by having
> different numbers (kinds) of parameters.[/color]

Nonsense. Constructors are needed if you want to have the control
over the process of constructing of the object (opening files,
checking system conditions, etc.)
[color=blue]
> the destructor destroys the konstructor and frees the memorie.[/color]

This statement doesn't make sense.
[color=blue]
> you are NOT forced to create an Konstruktor and Destruktor. If you don't
> declare them, then a Standard Kon- and destruc- tor will be called[/color]

Not "standard". "Default".
[color=blue]
> I make you an example:
>
> class GoodTest
> {
>
> private:
> int result;
>
> public:
>
> GoodTest(int a, int b, int c)
> {
> result = a * b *c;
> }
>
> ~GoodTest()
> {
> };
>
> void output
> {
> cout << "result is: " << result;
> }
>
> };
>
> int main()
> {
>
> GoodTest Teste(3,4,5);
> Teste.output();
> return 0;
> }[/color]

Along with the fact that this example doesn't compile due to errors,
it also doesn't demonstrate the use of _private_ constructors or
destructors as the OP asked.
[color=blue]
>
>
>
> Rajesh Garg wrote:[color=green]
> > Can we have private constructors and destructors? IF yes what is the
> > use of such constructors or destructors.... .in the sense where can
> > these be implemented in a system......... ........
> >
> > I have an idea that we can have private constructors and destructors
> > but am not able to find a situation where they can be used...[/color][/color]

Polymorphic objects. Constructed by a "factory method" or a friend
function, the objects reside in freestore. The user receives
a pointer to the object and uses it, then passes it to be destroyed
in another function.

class SomeBaseClass {
SomeBaseClass() ; // private constructor
virtual ~SomeBaseClass( ); // private destructor
public:
static SomeBaseClass* createMeOne(int ); // loaded from a DLL
virtual void doWork();
static void deleteThis(Some BaseClass*&);
};

int main() {
SomeBaseClass* p = SomeBaseClass:: createMeOne(42) ;
p->doWork();
SomeBaseClass:: deleteThis(p);
}

... somewhere in the library

class SomeDerivedClas s : public SomeBaseClass {
public:
SomeDerivedClas s(int);
private:
void doWork() {
doActualWork();
}
};

SomeBaseClass* SomeBaseClass:: createMeOne(int what) {
return new SomeDerivedClas s(what); /// <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< << !!!
}

void SomeBaseClass:: deleteThis(Some BaseClass*& ptr) {
delete ptr;
ptr = 0;
}

Victor