Is the possible to have all the public constructors of the publicbase class as the constructors of a derived class?

[Peng Yu]

Hi,

I want B has all the constructors that A has. Obviously, the code
below would not work. I could define a corresponding B's constructor
for each A's constructor. But if A has many constructors, it would be
inconvenient. I'm wondering if there is any way to inherent all A's
constructor implicitly.

Thanks,
Peng

class A{
public:
A(int x) : _x(x) { }
private:
int _x;
};

class B : public A { };

[Rolf Magnus]

Re: Is the possible to have all the public constructors of the public base class as the constructors of a derived class?

Peng Yu wrote:

Hi,
>
I want B has all the constructors that A has. Obviously, the code
below would not work. I could define a corresponding B's constructor
for each A's constructor. But if A has many constructors, it would be
inconvenient. I'm wondering if there is any way to inherent all A's
constructor implicitly.

There is no way. You have to define them yourself.

[Kai-Uwe Bux]

Re: Is the possible to have all the public constructors of the public base class as the constructors of a derived class?

Peng Yu wrote:

Hi,
>
I want B has all the constructors that A has. Obviously, the code
below would not work. I could define a corresponding B's constructor
for each A's constructor. But if A has many constructors, it would be
inconvenient. I'm wondering if there is any way to inherent all A's
constructor implicitly.

There is no way to inherit constructors. One reason is that a derived class
may add more data members, which would need initialization.

class A{
public:
A(int x) : _x(x) { }
private:
int _x;
};
>
class B : public A { };

That said, you can forward constructors using templates. E.g., the following
adds a virtual destructor:


template < typename T >
class virtual_destruc tor : public T {
public:

virtual_destruc tor ( void ) :
T ()
{}

template < typename A >
virtual_destruc tor ( A a ) :
T ( a )
{}

template < typename A, typename B >
virtual_destruc tor ( A a, B b ) :
T ( a, b )
{}

template < typename A, typename B, typename C >
virtual_destruc tor ( A a, B b, C c ) :
T ( a, b, c )
{}

template < typename A, typename B, typename C,
typename D >
virtual_destruc tor ( A a, B b, C c, D d ) :
T ( a, b, c, d )
{}

template < typename A, typename B, typename C,
typename D, typename E >
virtual_destruc tor ( A a, B b, C c, D d, E e ) :
T ( a, b, c, d, e )
{}

template < typename A, typename B, typename C,
typename D, typename E, typename F >
virtual_destruc tor ( A a, B b, C c, D d, E e, F f ) :
T ( a, b, c, d, e, f )
{}

virtual ~virtual_destru ctor ( void ) {}

}; // virtual_destruc tor<T>


This requires some knowledge/guess about the maximum number of arguments in
a constructor. Also, it does not handle reference parameters in
constructors nicely.

It is quite possible that this becomes simpler with variadic templates in
the next standard.



Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

[Juha Nieminen]

Re: Is the possible to have all the public constructors of the publicbase class as the constructors of a derived class?

Kai-Uwe Bux wrote:

It is quite possible that this becomes simpler with variadic templates in
the next standard.

I don't think it's just possible, but actually one of the main reasons
why variadic templates are being added to the next standard: To allow
perfect parameter forwarding.

[Pete Becker]

Re: Is the possible to have all the public constructors of the public base class as the constructors of a derived class?

On 2008-09-18 09:31:03 -0700, Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherciueh@gmx .netsaid:

>
This requires some knowledge/guess about the maximum number of arguments in
a constructor. Also, it does not handle reference parameters in
constructors nicely.
>
It is quite possible that this becomes simpler with variadic templates in
the next standard.
>

It also becomes unnecessary, because C++0x directly supports inheriting
constructors. <g>

--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)

[Juha Nieminen]

Re: Is the possible to have all the public constructors of the publicbase class as the constructors of a derived class?

Pete Becker wrote:

It also becomes unnecessary, because C++0x directly supports inheriting
constructors. <g>

Well, sort of. You still have to explicitly write a
"using BaseClass::Base Class;" line in your derived class. The
constructor inheritance is not automatic.

Still better than having to explicitly write derived class
constructors which call the equivalent base class constructors,
though (because the "using" line will inherit *all* the constructors
of the base class at once).

[Pete Becker]

Re: Is the possible to have all the public constructors of the public base class as the constructors of a derived class?

On 2008-09-19 03:19:27 -0700, Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks. invalidsaid:

Pete Becker wrote:

>It also becomes unnecessary, because C++0x directly supports inheriting
>constructors . <g>

>
Well, sort of. You still have to explicitly write a
"using BaseClass::Base Class;" line in your derived class. The
constructor inheritance is not automatic.

Of course not. Automatic inheritance of constructors would be a
disaster. Nevertheless, inherited constructors will be supported in
C++0x.

>
Still better than having to explicitly write derived class
constructors which call the equivalent base class constructors,
though (because the "using" line will inherit *all* the constructors
of the base class at once).

Indeed; that's how inheritance works.

--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)