Consider the following:
class A {
public:
const int c; // must not be modified!
A(int _c)
: c(_c)
{
// Nothing here
}
A(const A& copy)
: c(copy.c)
{
// Nothing here
}
};
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
A foo(1337);
vector<A> vec;
vec.push_back(foo); // <-- compile error!
return 0;
}
Obviously, the copy constructor is not enough. What am I missing?
EDIT:
Ofc. I cannot change this->c
in operator=()
method, so I don't see how operator=()
would be used (although required by std::vector
).
By Alex Allain. The const keyword allows you to specify whether or not a variable is modifiable. You can use const to prevent modifications to variables and const pointers and const references prevent changing the data pointed to (or referenced).
You can't put items into a const vector, the vectors state is the items it holds, and adding items to the vector modifies that state. If you want to append to a vector you must take in a non const ref. Show activity on this post. If you have a const vector it means you can only read the elements from that vector.
If the vector itself is declared const (as in const std::vector<T*>), then you can't modify the vector, but you can modify the objects. If the pointers are declared const (as in std::vector<const T*>), then you can modify the vector, but not the objects.
A const vector will return a const reference to its elements via the [] operator . In the first case, you cannot change the value of a const int&. In the second case, you cannot change the value of a reference to a constant pointer, but you can change the value the pointer is pointed to.
I'm not sure why nobody said it, but the correct answer is to drop the const
, or store A*
's in the vector (using the appropriate smart pointer).
You can give your class terrible semantics by having "copy" invoke UB or doing nothing (and therefore not being a copy), but why all this trouble dancing around UB and bad code? What do you get by making that const
? (Hint: Nothing.) Your problem is conceptual: If a class has a const member, the class is const. Objects that are const, fundamentally, cannot be assigned.
Just make it a non-const private, and expose its value immutably. To users, this is equivalent, const-wise. It allows the implicitly generated functions to work just fine.
An STL container element must be copy-constructible and assignable1(which your class A
isn't). You need to overload operator =
.
1
: §23.1
says The type of objects stored in these components must meet the requirements of CopyConstructible
types (20.1.3), and the additional requirements of Assignabletypes
EDIT :
Disclaimer: I am not sure whether the following piece of code is 100% safe. If it invokes UB or something please let me know.
A& operator=(const A& assign)
{
*const_cast<int*> (&c)= assign.c;
return *this;
}
EDIT 2
I think the above code snippet invokes Undefined Behaviour because trying to cast away the const-ness of a const
qualified variable invokes UB
.
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