How to create a vector with an initial size by using a custom constructor and without calling the destructor? [duplicate]









up vote
0
down vote

favorite













This question already has an answer here:



  • What is The Rule of Three?

    8 answers



Take the following example:



#include <iostream>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <vector>

using namespace std;

class Foo
public:
Foo()
cout << "Constructing the default way..." << endl;
this->num = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int));

Foo(int a)
cout << "Using a custom constructor..." << endl;
this->num = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int) * a);


~Foo()
cout << "Destructing..." << endl;
free((void*)num);


int* num;
;

int main()

vector<Foo> objects(5);
for(Foo& v : objects) printf("%x0xn", v.num);

cout << "n---------------n";
cout << "END OF PROGRAM!n";
cout << "---------------nn";
return 0;



Creating the vector by passing it an initial count of objects creates every single object individually, hence, all of them have their num at different addresses and their destructors are called at the end of the program.



However, if I want to create the vector by giving it a custom constructor like vector<Foo> objects(5, Foo(5)); (This is only my guess) a temporary object is constructed and then copied to every object in the array. Effectively, this makes every single object in the vector have their num pointer point to the same memory. Plus that memory gets freed when the initialization is finished and then every single object becomes useless.



How do I go around this without making the custom constructor into a new Init(int) function and running it on every single object in the vector? (Of course changing malloc into realloc).










share|improve this question













marked as duplicate by Passer By, Baum mit Augen c++
Users with the  c++ badge can single-handedly close c++ questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
Nov 18 at 19:50


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.














  • You may want std::fill.
    – Jesper Juhl
    Nov 11 at 13:38







  • 2




    This question shows how you want to solve a problem. The problem with the question is that you don't tell us the actual problem you want to solve, you only ask us how to fix this solution to your unknown problem. That's a very typical XY problem. Please try to ask us about the real problem you want to solve, tell us your solution to it (which you have) and perhaps we will be able to help you solve the real problem in a perhaps better way. If not then we will help you with the solution you have.
    – Some programmer dude
    Nov 11 at 13:39







  • 2




    Also, in C++ never use malloc and free, not even for primitive types like int arrays. Always begin with std::vector. And you need to learn about the rules of three/five/zero, and with a std::vector you can follow the rule of zero which I recommend.
    – Some programmer dude
    Nov 11 at 13:42







  • 1




    malloc/free should never be used in C++ programs. They don't call constructors/destructors. Use new/delete instead - well, not really; please use containers and/or smart pointers instead of manual memory management.
    – Jesper Juhl
    Nov 11 at 13:45






  • 2




    This is only my guess -- There is no need to guess. The std::vector implementation for your compiler is readily available to you by opening up the #include <vector> header. Or simply debug and step through to see how that constructor works. In any event, it is likely that the std::vector class uses placement-new, not a naive "create a temporary and copy" as you would believe. The programmers writing the implementation of std::vector are some of the best professionals in the world -- they are well aware of optimizing these things far more than the average C++ programmer.
    – PaulMcKenzie
    Nov 11 at 14:02















up vote
0
down vote

favorite













This question already has an answer here:



  • What is The Rule of Three?

    8 answers



Take the following example:



#include <iostream>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <vector>

using namespace std;

class Foo
public:
Foo()
cout << "Constructing the default way..." << endl;
this->num = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int));

Foo(int a)
cout << "Using a custom constructor..." << endl;
this->num = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int) * a);


~Foo()
cout << "Destructing..." << endl;
free((void*)num);


int* num;
;

int main()

vector<Foo> objects(5);
for(Foo& v : objects) printf("%x0xn", v.num);

cout << "n---------------n";
cout << "END OF PROGRAM!n";
cout << "---------------nn";
return 0;



Creating the vector by passing it an initial count of objects creates every single object individually, hence, all of them have their num at different addresses and their destructors are called at the end of the program.



However, if I want to create the vector by giving it a custom constructor like vector<Foo> objects(5, Foo(5)); (This is only my guess) a temporary object is constructed and then copied to every object in the array. Effectively, this makes every single object in the vector have their num pointer point to the same memory. Plus that memory gets freed when the initialization is finished and then every single object becomes useless.



How do I go around this without making the custom constructor into a new Init(int) function and running it on every single object in the vector? (Of course changing malloc into realloc).










share|improve this question













marked as duplicate by Passer By, Baum mit Augen c++
Users with the  c++ badge can single-handedly close c++ questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
Nov 18 at 19:50


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.














  • You may want std::fill.
    – Jesper Juhl
    Nov 11 at 13:38







  • 2




    This question shows how you want to solve a problem. The problem with the question is that you don't tell us the actual problem you want to solve, you only ask us how to fix this solution to your unknown problem. That's a very typical XY problem. Please try to ask us about the real problem you want to solve, tell us your solution to it (which you have) and perhaps we will be able to help you solve the real problem in a perhaps better way. If not then we will help you with the solution you have.
    – Some programmer dude
    Nov 11 at 13:39







  • 2




    Also, in C++ never use malloc and free, not even for primitive types like int arrays. Always begin with std::vector. And you need to learn about the rules of three/five/zero, and with a std::vector you can follow the rule of zero which I recommend.
    – Some programmer dude
    Nov 11 at 13:42







  • 1




    malloc/free should never be used in C++ programs. They don't call constructors/destructors. Use new/delete instead - well, not really; please use containers and/or smart pointers instead of manual memory management.
    – Jesper Juhl
    Nov 11 at 13:45






  • 2




    This is only my guess -- There is no need to guess. The std::vector implementation for your compiler is readily available to you by opening up the #include <vector> header. Or simply debug and step through to see how that constructor works. In any event, it is likely that the std::vector class uses placement-new, not a naive "create a temporary and copy" as you would believe. The programmers writing the implementation of std::vector are some of the best professionals in the world -- they are well aware of optimizing these things far more than the average C++ programmer.
    – PaulMcKenzie
    Nov 11 at 14:02













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite












This question already has an answer here:



  • What is The Rule of Three?

    8 answers



Take the following example:



#include <iostream>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <vector>

using namespace std;

class Foo
public:
Foo()
cout << "Constructing the default way..." << endl;
this->num = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int));

Foo(int a)
cout << "Using a custom constructor..." << endl;
this->num = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int) * a);


~Foo()
cout << "Destructing..." << endl;
free((void*)num);


int* num;
;

int main()

vector<Foo> objects(5);
for(Foo& v : objects) printf("%x0xn", v.num);

cout << "n---------------n";
cout << "END OF PROGRAM!n";
cout << "---------------nn";
return 0;



Creating the vector by passing it an initial count of objects creates every single object individually, hence, all of them have their num at different addresses and their destructors are called at the end of the program.



However, if I want to create the vector by giving it a custom constructor like vector<Foo> objects(5, Foo(5)); (This is only my guess) a temporary object is constructed and then copied to every object in the array. Effectively, this makes every single object in the vector have their num pointer point to the same memory. Plus that memory gets freed when the initialization is finished and then every single object becomes useless.



How do I go around this without making the custom constructor into a new Init(int) function and running it on every single object in the vector? (Of course changing malloc into realloc).










share|improve this question














This question already has an answer here:



  • What is The Rule of Three?

    8 answers



Take the following example:



#include <iostream>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <vector>

using namespace std;

class Foo
public:
Foo()
cout << "Constructing the default way..." << endl;
this->num = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int));

Foo(int a)
cout << "Using a custom constructor..." << endl;
this->num = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int) * a);


~Foo()
cout << "Destructing..." << endl;
free((void*)num);


int* num;
;

int main()

vector<Foo> objects(5);
for(Foo& v : objects) printf("%x0xn", v.num);

cout << "n---------------n";
cout << "END OF PROGRAM!n";
cout << "---------------nn";
return 0;



Creating the vector by passing it an initial count of objects creates every single object individually, hence, all of them have their num at different addresses and their destructors are called at the end of the program.



However, if I want to create the vector by giving it a custom constructor like vector<Foo> objects(5, Foo(5)); (This is only my guess) a temporary object is constructed and then copied to every object in the array. Effectively, this makes every single object in the vector have their num pointer point to the same memory. Plus that memory gets freed when the initialization is finished and then every single object becomes useless.



How do I go around this without making the custom constructor into a new Init(int) function and running it on every single object in the vector? (Of course changing malloc into realloc).





This question already has an answer here:



  • What is The Rule of Three?

    8 answers







c++ class vector






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Nov 11 at 13:33









Habitate

115




115




marked as duplicate by Passer By, Baum mit Augen c++
Users with the  c++ badge can single-handedly close c++ questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
Nov 18 at 19:50


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






marked as duplicate by Passer By, Baum mit Augen c++
Users with the  c++ badge can single-handedly close c++ questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
Nov 18 at 19:50


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.













  • You may want std::fill.
    – Jesper Juhl
    Nov 11 at 13:38







  • 2




    This question shows how you want to solve a problem. The problem with the question is that you don't tell us the actual problem you want to solve, you only ask us how to fix this solution to your unknown problem. That's a very typical XY problem. Please try to ask us about the real problem you want to solve, tell us your solution to it (which you have) and perhaps we will be able to help you solve the real problem in a perhaps better way. If not then we will help you with the solution you have.
    – Some programmer dude
    Nov 11 at 13:39







  • 2




    Also, in C++ never use malloc and free, not even for primitive types like int arrays. Always begin with std::vector. And you need to learn about the rules of three/five/zero, and with a std::vector you can follow the rule of zero which I recommend.
    – Some programmer dude
    Nov 11 at 13:42







  • 1




    malloc/free should never be used in C++ programs. They don't call constructors/destructors. Use new/delete instead - well, not really; please use containers and/or smart pointers instead of manual memory management.
    – Jesper Juhl
    Nov 11 at 13:45






  • 2




    This is only my guess -- There is no need to guess. The std::vector implementation for your compiler is readily available to you by opening up the #include <vector> header. Or simply debug and step through to see how that constructor works. In any event, it is likely that the std::vector class uses placement-new, not a naive "create a temporary and copy" as you would believe. The programmers writing the implementation of std::vector are some of the best professionals in the world -- they are well aware of optimizing these things far more than the average C++ programmer.
    – PaulMcKenzie
    Nov 11 at 14:02

















  • You may want std::fill.
    – Jesper Juhl
    Nov 11 at 13:38







  • 2




    This question shows how you want to solve a problem. The problem with the question is that you don't tell us the actual problem you want to solve, you only ask us how to fix this solution to your unknown problem. That's a very typical XY problem. Please try to ask us about the real problem you want to solve, tell us your solution to it (which you have) and perhaps we will be able to help you solve the real problem in a perhaps better way. If not then we will help you with the solution you have.
    – Some programmer dude
    Nov 11 at 13:39







  • 2




    Also, in C++ never use malloc and free, not even for primitive types like int arrays. Always begin with std::vector. And you need to learn about the rules of three/five/zero, and with a std::vector you can follow the rule of zero which I recommend.
    – Some programmer dude
    Nov 11 at 13:42







  • 1




    malloc/free should never be used in C++ programs. They don't call constructors/destructors. Use new/delete instead - well, not really; please use containers and/or smart pointers instead of manual memory management.
    – Jesper Juhl
    Nov 11 at 13:45






  • 2




    This is only my guess -- There is no need to guess. The std::vector implementation for your compiler is readily available to you by opening up the #include <vector> header. Or simply debug and step through to see how that constructor works. In any event, it is likely that the std::vector class uses placement-new, not a naive "create a temporary and copy" as you would believe. The programmers writing the implementation of std::vector are some of the best professionals in the world -- they are well aware of optimizing these things far more than the average C++ programmer.
    – PaulMcKenzie
    Nov 11 at 14:02
















You may want std::fill.
– Jesper Juhl
Nov 11 at 13:38





You may want std::fill.
– Jesper Juhl
Nov 11 at 13:38





2




2




This question shows how you want to solve a problem. The problem with the question is that you don't tell us the actual problem you want to solve, you only ask us how to fix this solution to your unknown problem. That's a very typical XY problem. Please try to ask us about the real problem you want to solve, tell us your solution to it (which you have) and perhaps we will be able to help you solve the real problem in a perhaps better way. If not then we will help you with the solution you have.
– Some programmer dude
Nov 11 at 13:39





This question shows how you want to solve a problem. The problem with the question is that you don't tell us the actual problem you want to solve, you only ask us how to fix this solution to your unknown problem. That's a very typical XY problem. Please try to ask us about the real problem you want to solve, tell us your solution to it (which you have) and perhaps we will be able to help you solve the real problem in a perhaps better way. If not then we will help you with the solution you have.
– Some programmer dude
Nov 11 at 13:39





2




2




Also, in C++ never use malloc and free, not even for primitive types like int arrays. Always begin with std::vector. And you need to learn about the rules of three/five/zero, and with a std::vector you can follow the rule of zero which I recommend.
– Some programmer dude
Nov 11 at 13:42





Also, in C++ never use malloc and free, not even for primitive types like int arrays. Always begin with std::vector. And you need to learn about the rules of three/five/zero, and with a std::vector you can follow the rule of zero which I recommend.
– Some programmer dude
Nov 11 at 13:42





1




1




malloc/free should never be used in C++ programs. They don't call constructors/destructors. Use new/delete instead - well, not really; please use containers and/or smart pointers instead of manual memory management.
– Jesper Juhl
Nov 11 at 13:45




malloc/free should never be used in C++ programs. They don't call constructors/destructors. Use new/delete instead - well, not really; please use containers and/or smart pointers instead of manual memory management.
– Jesper Juhl
Nov 11 at 13:45




2




2




This is only my guess -- There is no need to guess. The std::vector implementation for your compiler is readily available to you by opening up the #include <vector> header. Or simply debug and step through to see how that constructor works. In any event, it is likely that the std::vector class uses placement-new, not a naive "create a temporary and copy" as you would believe. The programmers writing the implementation of std::vector are some of the best professionals in the world -- they are well aware of optimizing these things far more than the average C++ programmer.
– PaulMcKenzie
Nov 11 at 14:02





This is only my guess -- There is no need to guess. The std::vector implementation for your compiler is readily available to you by opening up the #include <vector> header. Or simply debug and step through to see how that constructor works. In any event, it is likely that the std::vector class uses placement-new, not a naive "create a temporary and copy" as you would believe. The programmers writing the implementation of std::vector are some of the best professionals in the world -- they are well aware of optimizing these things far more than the average C++ programmer.
– PaulMcKenzie
Nov 11 at 14:02













2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote



accepted










You could solve your problem with a vector of unique_ptr's to the Foo objects.



class Foo

public:
Foo(int i)

// ...
;

#include <algorithm>
#include <vector>

auto main() -> int

std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Foo>> foos(100);
std::generate(foos.begin(), foos.end(), () return std::make_unique<Foo>(5); );



However, you don't want to do this because otherwise you would have to go the extra indirection with the unique_ptr when calling anything on a vector's Foo object.



As others have already suggested, you should store Foo's int members in a vector. Then you can just reserve the space in the vector and emplace_back (construct) your Foo objects directly in the vector of Foo's.



#include <vector>

class Foo

public:
Foo()
Foo(int i) : ints(i)

private:
std::vector<int> ints;
;

namespace

constexpr auto NumberOfFoos = 100;


auto main() -> int

std::vector<Foo> foos;
foos.reserve(NumberOfFoos);

for (auto i = 0; i < NumberOfFoos; ++i)
foos.emplace_back(10);




Regarding your code, you might want to have a look at these additional sources and answers (as already suggested by other comments):



  • Rule of three

  • Stop using std::endl

  • Why is “using namespace std” considered bad practice?





share|improve this answer



























    up vote
    -1
    down vote













    Two problems preventing a solution.



    1) You need to implement your custom copy and assignment operators to do the deep copying since the default shallow copy (as you point out) doesn't do the right thing.



    2) You need to let the object remember how large an array you are allocating for the copy/assignment implementations to work.






    share|improve this answer



























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      0
      down vote



      accepted










      You could solve your problem with a vector of unique_ptr's to the Foo objects.



      class Foo

      public:
      Foo(int i)

      // ...
      ;

      #include <algorithm>
      #include <vector>

      auto main() -> int

      std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Foo>> foos(100);
      std::generate(foos.begin(), foos.end(), () return std::make_unique<Foo>(5); );



      However, you don't want to do this because otherwise you would have to go the extra indirection with the unique_ptr when calling anything on a vector's Foo object.



      As others have already suggested, you should store Foo's int members in a vector. Then you can just reserve the space in the vector and emplace_back (construct) your Foo objects directly in the vector of Foo's.



      #include <vector>

      class Foo

      public:
      Foo()
      Foo(int i) : ints(i)

      private:
      std::vector<int> ints;
      ;

      namespace

      constexpr auto NumberOfFoos = 100;


      auto main() -> int

      std::vector<Foo> foos;
      foos.reserve(NumberOfFoos);

      for (auto i = 0; i < NumberOfFoos; ++i)
      foos.emplace_back(10);




      Regarding your code, you might want to have a look at these additional sources and answers (as already suggested by other comments):



      • Rule of three

      • Stop using std::endl

      • Why is “using namespace std” considered bad practice?





      share|improve this answer
























        up vote
        0
        down vote



        accepted










        You could solve your problem with a vector of unique_ptr's to the Foo objects.



        class Foo

        public:
        Foo(int i)

        // ...
        ;

        #include <algorithm>
        #include <vector>

        auto main() -> int

        std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Foo>> foos(100);
        std::generate(foos.begin(), foos.end(), () return std::make_unique<Foo>(5); );



        However, you don't want to do this because otherwise you would have to go the extra indirection with the unique_ptr when calling anything on a vector's Foo object.



        As others have already suggested, you should store Foo's int members in a vector. Then you can just reserve the space in the vector and emplace_back (construct) your Foo objects directly in the vector of Foo's.



        #include <vector>

        class Foo

        public:
        Foo()
        Foo(int i) : ints(i)

        private:
        std::vector<int> ints;
        ;

        namespace

        constexpr auto NumberOfFoos = 100;


        auto main() -> int

        std::vector<Foo> foos;
        foos.reserve(NumberOfFoos);

        for (auto i = 0; i < NumberOfFoos; ++i)
        foos.emplace_back(10);




        Regarding your code, you might want to have a look at these additional sources and answers (as already suggested by other comments):



        • Rule of three

        • Stop using std::endl

        • Why is “using namespace std” considered bad practice?





        share|improve this answer






















          up vote
          0
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          0
          down vote



          accepted






          You could solve your problem with a vector of unique_ptr's to the Foo objects.



          class Foo

          public:
          Foo(int i)

          // ...
          ;

          #include <algorithm>
          #include <vector>

          auto main() -> int

          std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Foo>> foos(100);
          std::generate(foos.begin(), foos.end(), () return std::make_unique<Foo>(5); );



          However, you don't want to do this because otherwise you would have to go the extra indirection with the unique_ptr when calling anything on a vector's Foo object.



          As others have already suggested, you should store Foo's int members in a vector. Then you can just reserve the space in the vector and emplace_back (construct) your Foo objects directly in the vector of Foo's.



          #include <vector>

          class Foo

          public:
          Foo()
          Foo(int i) : ints(i)

          private:
          std::vector<int> ints;
          ;

          namespace

          constexpr auto NumberOfFoos = 100;


          auto main() -> int

          std::vector<Foo> foos;
          foos.reserve(NumberOfFoos);

          for (auto i = 0; i < NumberOfFoos; ++i)
          foos.emplace_back(10);




          Regarding your code, you might want to have a look at these additional sources and answers (as already suggested by other comments):



          • Rule of three

          • Stop using std::endl

          • Why is “using namespace std” considered bad practice?





          share|improve this answer












          You could solve your problem with a vector of unique_ptr's to the Foo objects.



          class Foo

          public:
          Foo(int i)

          // ...
          ;

          #include <algorithm>
          #include <vector>

          auto main() -> int

          std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Foo>> foos(100);
          std::generate(foos.begin(), foos.end(), () return std::make_unique<Foo>(5); );



          However, you don't want to do this because otherwise you would have to go the extra indirection with the unique_ptr when calling anything on a vector's Foo object.



          As others have already suggested, you should store Foo's int members in a vector. Then you can just reserve the space in the vector and emplace_back (construct) your Foo objects directly in the vector of Foo's.



          #include <vector>

          class Foo

          public:
          Foo()
          Foo(int i) : ints(i)

          private:
          std::vector<int> ints;
          ;

          namespace

          constexpr auto NumberOfFoos = 100;


          auto main() -> int

          std::vector<Foo> foos;
          foos.reserve(NumberOfFoos);

          for (auto i = 0; i < NumberOfFoos; ++i)
          foos.emplace_back(10);




          Regarding your code, you might want to have a look at these additional sources and answers (as already suggested by other comments):



          • Rule of three

          • Stop using std::endl

          • Why is “using namespace std” considered bad practice?






          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Nov 11 at 14:36









          SourceChris

          563




          563






















              up vote
              -1
              down vote













              Two problems preventing a solution.



              1) You need to implement your custom copy and assignment operators to do the deep copying since the default shallow copy (as you point out) doesn't do the right thing.



              2) You need to let the object remember how large an array you are allocating for the copy/assignment implementations to work.






              share|improve this answer
























                up vote
                -1
                down vote













                Two problems preventing a solution.



                1) You need to implement your custom copy and assignment operators to do the deep copying since the default shallow copy (as you point out) doesn't do the right thing.



                2) You need to let the object remember how large an array you are allocating for the copy/assignment implementations to work.






                share|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  -1
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  -1
                  down vote









                  Two problems preventing a solution.



                  1) You need to implement your custom copy and assignment operators to do the deep copying since the default shallow copy (as you point out) doesn't do the right thing.



                  2) You need to let the object remember how large an array you are allocating for the copy/assignment implementations to work.






                  share|improve this answer












                  Two problems preventing a solution.



                  1) You need to implement your custom copy and assignment operators to do the deep copying since the default shallow copy (as you point out) doesn't do the right thing.



                  2) You need to let the object remember how large an array you are allocating for the copy/assignment implementations to work.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 11 at 13:42









                  Bo R

                  606110




                  606110













                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Top Tejano songwriter Luis Silva dead of heart attack at 64

                      ReactJS Fetched API data displays live - need Data displayed static

                      Evgeni Malkin