Follow

Keep Up to Date with the Most Important News

By pressing the Subscribe button, you confirm that you have read and are agreeing to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
Contact

Purpose of explicitly deleting the default constructor

The codebase I’m working on was developed mostly pre-C++11. A lot of classes have a never-defined default constructor declared in the private section. I’m rather confident that in Modern C++, the Correct Way™ is to make them public and = delete them. I “upgraded” classes to this countless times by now and it never lead to problems.

My question is rather: Why was that done at all? This answer said that a default constructor is only ever provided if there’s no constructor given by the user (I guess that’s not including = default) and there’s no hint that it doesn’t apply to pre-C++11. Of course, there is a non-trivial constructor in all of my classes I’m talking about. So, is there a rationale for it that I am missing?

MEDevel.com: Open-source for Healthcare and Education

Collecting and validating open-source software for healthcare, education, enterprise, development, medical imaging, medical records, and digital pathology.

Visit Medevel

>Solution :

Any function can be = deleted. A default constructor is a function, so it can be deleted. There’s no need to make a language carveout for that.

That some users choose to explicitly delete the default constructor (or the pre-C++ pseudo-equivalent of a private declaration with no definition) when it would not have been generated by the compiler is harmless. Indeed, it has some small benefits.

  1. If someone changes the class to remove its constructors, the class won’t suddenly gain a default constructor.

  2. You don’t have to remember what the rules are about when a default constructor is generated. For example:

    I guess that’s not including = default

    This proves my point, because you guessed wrong. Explicitly defaulted constructors do count as "user-provided", and thus they do suppress the creation of an implicit default constructor. Having to remember that is bothersome; it’s more clearer to just state it outright.

Add a comment

Leave a Reply

Keep Up to Date with the Most Important News

By pressing the Subscribe button, you confirm that you have read and are agreeing to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

Discover more from Dev solutions

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading