Re: A few minor questions
* blargg:
Jeff Schwab wrote:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Jeff Schwab:
The standard does use that phrase, and it's popular in vernacular.
However, you really cannot call a constructor directly in C++.
There's just [no dedicated] syntax to do it.
Right in isolation: that's how it is with a lot of things in C++,
there's just no dedicated syntax.
But one wonders why you think it's a good idea to confuse people by
pointing out the lack of clean syntax as if it had some relevance to any
particular item of discussion?
It's not only a lack of clean syntax. How would you directly call a
constructor? Given something like:
auto std::string s;
The constructor is called by the system on your behalf, but so is the
destructor. Saying this is a "constructor call" is no more meaningful
than saying it's a "destructor call."
And so is space allocated and deallocated for the object. Even simply
using placement new involves extra machinery, for example if creating a
Derived object and the Derived constructor throws, the compiler will then
call the Base destructor, then placement delete. That's a lot more than
simply calling the constructor,
A placement new invocation is a little more than a direct constructor call, yes,
as I've already pointed out in this thread (not to mention countless earlier
threads); it might resonably be described as an indirect constructor call.
But as I pointed out in the article you're replying to, but misleadingly snipped
by you, where instead you misleadingly chose to discuss a different example, for
the particular example chosen by Jeff above, the standard, not surprisingly,
refers to the source code as a constructor call.
So what you write above is true in isolation, but misleading in context because
it's not relevant but the context makes it appear to be somehow relevant.
Summing up, what you write above is nothing more than misdirection.
And since I think you know that, I therefore think you're actively trying to
make others believe something that you yourself know is false, i.e. I think that
the above fits any reasonable definition of lying.
and a clear case that the constructor is
not a normal function at all.
Yes, a constructor is, according to the standard, a special member function.
Special member functions are special.
But really, there can't many, if any at all, who have failed to grasp that
"special" means "special", so it's sort of unnecessary to point it out unless
the intent is to confuse and muddle some issue.
By the way, you keep claiming that my motives are to be intentionally
misleading, and you alternately accuse me of being malicious and
confused-bordering-on-insane. Do me a favor and drop the insults, OK?
Good luck.
That ad hominem attack is at the level of a preschool child throwing a tantrum.
When you are mistaken about something, and someone helps you out, you shouldn't
thank that person by throwing veiled insinuations about.
Since you're (1) lying, as shown above, at least in my opinion, and (2) throwing
ad hominem attacks, I don't see any reason to continue this discussion, except
nailing you again if you persist with more of that kind.
Cheers,
- Alf
--
Due to hosting requirements I need visits to <url: http://alfps.izfree.com/>.
No ads, and there is some C++ stuff! :-) Just going there is good. Linking
to it is even better! Thanks in advance!