A common thing I find myself doing is making "almost default" copy constructors and assignment operators. That is, I find myself in situations where the compiler supplied copy and assignment operators would work for most of the data members, but there's a particular data member which needs to be handled differently. This means that I have to explicitly create a copy constructor/assignment operator, including explicitly listing all the data members which have simple copy semantics. This can get annoying for classes where there are a fair number of data members, or later on when member variables are added but aren't added to the copy constructor/assignment operator.
Is there some way to tell the C++ compiler that an explicitly declared copy constructor/assignment operator should work like an implicit one, except for some additional code that's run afterwards? (And is such a syntax C++98 compatible, or does it need C++11 or C++14 support?)
If you can isolate the specific handling in a proper RAII wrapper as Igor Tandetnik suggested: go for that.
If you still need specific processing in the copy constructor and/or assignment operator (such as register the object creation/assignment in a container or log), you can group the data members that can be default copy constructed/assigned into a separate class that you use as a base class or data member, which you handle as composite, thus:
struct x_base {
int a,b,c,d;
std::string name;
};
struct x : x_base {
x(const x& other)
: x_base(other)
{
descr = "copied ";
descr += name;
descr += " at ";
descr += CurrentTimeAsString();
std::cout << descr << "\n";
}
void operator = (const x& other)
{
x_base::operator =(other);
descr = "assigned ";
descr += name;
descr += " at ";
descr += CurrentTimeAsString();
std::cout << descr << "\n";
}
std::string descr;
};
When you later add data members that don't need specific handling, you can simply add them to x_base.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With