Theoretical doubt here. Reading a book, and given this statement: StringBad metoo = knot;
where:
- StringBad is a class
- knot is an object of that class
the author says the following regarding copy constructors:
implementations have the option of handling this statement in two steps: using the copy constructor to create a temporary object and then using assignment to copy the values to the new object.That is, initialization always invokes a copy constructor, and forms using the = operator may also invoke an assignment operator.
My implementation do this in one step:
- Creates the metoo object with the copy constructor, the same as this :
StringBad metoo(knot);
I could understand that other implementations could do it in two steps like this:
- Create a metoo object with the default constructor, like :
StringBad metoo;
- Use the overloaded asignment operator to assign the knot object to the metoo object.
But the author says an initialization always invokes a copy constructor. Is that correct? If so, what are the steps the compiler would follow in some implementations to make it in two steps? I couldn't test it in mine cause, as I said it does it in one step.
The author is wrong. What you have is a declaration statement with copy initialization, and the only way this can be realized is by instantiating a new object via the
StringBad(StringBad const &)
copy constructor.* The assignment operator will never be called in this situation, and doesn't even need to exist or be accessible.There is almost no difference between the two variants
StringBad metoo = knot;
andStringBad metoo(knot);
.*) or the non-const version if that happens to exist and match.