Problem understanding explicit constructor in C++

Question

After reading this thread What does the explicit keyword mean in C++?

I made up this program

class MyClass
{
  public:
  explicit MyClass(int a)
  {
    cout<<"Int was called"<<endl;
    val = a;
  }

  MyClass(char *a)
  {
    cout<<"Char was called"<<endl;
    val = atoi(a);
  }

  MyClass(const MyClass& copy)
  {
    cout<<"Copy Const was called"<<endl;
    this->val = copy.val;
  }

  inline const int getval() const
  { return val; }

  private:
  int val ;
};

main code

int main()
{
  int x=4;
  char y='4';
  char *z = &y;

  MyClass a(x);
  MyClass b(z);
  MyClass c(a);
  MyClass d('4');

  cout<<a.getval()<<endl;
  cout<<b.getval()<<endl;
  cout<<c.getval()<<endl;
  cout<<d.getval()<<endl;

  return 0;
}

The output was:

Int was called
Char was called
Copy Const was called
Int was called
4
4
4
52

Now, as per thread above, it should throw error after the constructor call on object d but it didn't.

g++ version info

Using built-in specs.
Target: i486-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5' --with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.4/README.Bugs --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --prefix=/usr --enable-shared --enable-multiarch --enable-linker-build-id --with-system-zlib --libexecdir=/usr/lib --without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.4 --program-suffix=-4.4 --enable-nls --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-plugin --enable-objc-gc --enable-targets=all --disable-werror --with-arch-32=i486 --with-tune=generic --enable-checking=release --build=i486-linux-gnu --host=i486-linux-gnu --target=i486-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.4.3 (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5)

I am not sure if i have done something wrong in the above code. Please help

Why did you expect an error in while constructing d?

David Rodríguez - dribeas
– David Rodríguez - dribeas

2010-09-15 12:18:12 +00:00
Commented Sep 15, 2010 at 12:18 — David Rodríguez - dribeas
– David Rodríguez - dribeas, Commented Sep 15, 2010 at 12:18

Cătălin Pitiș · Accepted Answer · 2010-09-15 12:20:25Z

4

Explicit constructor will not allow you to do something like "implicit conversion", e.g. when initializing an object:

MyClass d = 4;

or when calling a function with parameters:

void foo( const MyClass& param);

... 

foo( 4);

In your case, there is a conversion from char to int before calling the explicit constructor, which is as designed.

answered Sep 15, 2010 at 12:20

Cătălin Pitiș

14.4k2 gold badges41 silver badges63 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

4 Comments

Chubsdad Over a year ago

Also there is no point in returning 'const int' from operator 'int' as cv qualified rvalues of fundamental types do not make sense. Am I right?

Cătălin Pitiș Over a year ago

A result by value is returned, so I see no point for const int.

David Rodríguez - dribeas Over a year ago

I never do it, but I have read some authors recommending it to avoid mistakenly changing the temporary in situations like if ( foo() = 0 ) (when == was intended). For most such situations current compilers can be set to produce warnings so I have never really used it.

Cătălin Pitiș Over a year ago

That's why you could rephrase in a form some people hate: if( 0 == foo())

Daren Thomas · Accepted Answer · 2010-09-15 12:17:38Z

1

Actually, constructing d was done with the int constructor. Your char ('4') was implicitly casted to an int. This is legal in C/C++ since these are both integer numbers, with int being at least as wide as char (the other way round needs an explicit cast, as possible precision loss can result).

The output for object d was the ASCII code for the character "4".

answered Sep 15, 2010 at 12:17

Daren Thomas

70.8k42 gold badges157 silver badges205 bronze badges

Comments

David Rodríguez - dribeas · Accepted Answer · 2010-09-15 12:20:15Z

1

The explicit keyword defines that the constructor is not available for implicit conversions, but in your code you are explicitly requesting the construction of the objects from the values.

If you change the code to:

MyClass d = 'a';
MyClass x = 5;

Then the conversion is implicit and you will get an error.

Note that the conversion that is important is not from 'a' to int but from int to MyClass. The compiler is allowed to perform the conversion from 'a' to int, as the MyClass(int) constructor is explicitly requested in your original code.

answered Sep 15, 2010 at 12:20

David Rodríguez - dribeas

209k23 gold badges304 silver badges496 bronze badges

Comments

pauljwilliams · Accepted Answer · 2010-09-15 12:19:37Z

0

'4' is a char, which is freely convertible to int. 52 is the character code for '4'

answered Sep 15, 2010 at 12:19

pauljwilliams

19.3k3 gold badges54 silver badges80 bronze badges

Comments

Daniele Santi · Accepted Answer · 2010-09-15 12:22:08Z

0

A "char" (as in 'd') has an int value in C++. Infact, 52 is the integer ASCII value of 'd'.

answered Sep 15, 2010 at 12:22

Daniele Santi

7693 gold badges25 silver badges33 bronze badges

Comments

m_pGladiator · Accepted Answer · 2010-09-15 12:22:34Z

0

There is no error - it just invokes your int constructor with the integer value '4', which is actually U+0034 (Hex) or the number 52. All char constants in C/C++ are stored as int internally

answered Sep 15, 2010 at 12:22

m_pGladiator

8,6808 gold badges46 silver badges61 bronze badges

Comments

fastcodejava · Accepted Answer · 2010-09-15 12:23:48Z

0

Any char literal is an int, you can say int i = 'a;`

answered Sep 15, 2010 at 12:23

fastcodejava

41.3k31 gold badges142 silver badges191 bronze badges

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Problem understanding explicit constructor in C++

7 Answers 7

4 Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Linked

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

7 Answers 7

4 Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Linked

Related