C ++对象构造方法之间的区别 [英] Difference between C++ object construction methods
问题描述
C ++中不同的构造语法总是让我有些困惑。在另一个问题中,建议尝试初始化像这样的字符串
std :: string foo {'\0'};
这有效并产生预期的结果:长度为1的字符串,仅包含空字符。在测试代码时,我不小心输入了
std :: string foo('\0');
这可以很好地编译(即使使用 -Wall $ c $也没有警告c>),但在运行时终止,
终止是在抛出'std :: logic_error'
实例后调用的what():basic_string :: _ M_construct null无效
中止(转储)
现在,据我所知,没有<$的构造函数 c $ c> std :: string ,它使用单个字符作为参数,当我尝试间接传递字符时,这一假设得到了进一步的证实。
char b ='\0';
std :: string a(b);
这会产生一个很长的编译错误。
std :: string a(’z’)也是如此;
所以我的问题是:什么允许 std :: string a('\ \0');
进行编译,它与 std :: string a {'\0'};
有何不同?
脚注:在Ubuntu上使用 g ++
进行编译。这不会给我一个编译器错误,但以防万一...
字符'\0'
可隐式转换为 0
的整数值,从而表示实现定义的空指针常量。这:
std :: string foo(’\0’);
调用构造函数重载,接受类型为 const char * $ c的指针$ c>作为参数,并导致未定义的行为。
等效于传递 0
或 NULL
:
std :: string foo(0); // UB
std :: string bar(NULL); // UB
引用表示第四和第五个构造函数重载状态:
如果s ...的行为是不确定的...包括s是空
指针的情况。
第二条语句:
std :: string foo {'\0'}; // OK
调用接受 std :: initializer_list< char>
作为参数,不会导致UB。
您可以调用构造函数重载,接受 count 个 char
s号:
std :: string s(1,'\0');
The different construction syntaxes in C++ have always confused me a bit. In another question, it was suggested to try initializing a string like so
std::string foo{ '\0' };
This works and produces the intended result: a string of length 1 containing only the null character. In testing the code, I accidentally typed
std::string foo('\0');
This compiles fine (no warnings even with -Wall
), but terminates at runtime with
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::logic_error'
what(): basic_string::_M_construct null not valid
Aborted (core dumped)
Now, as far as I can tell, there is no constructor for std::string
which takes a single character as an argument, and this hypothesis is further confirmed when I attempt to pass the character indirectly.
char b = '\0';
std::string a(b);
This produces a nice, lengthy compile error. As does this
std::string a('z');
So my question is: what allows std::string a('\0');
to compile, and what makes it different from std::string a{ '\0' };
?
Footnote: Compiling using g++
on Ubuntu. This doesn't strike me as a compiler bug, but just in case...
Character '\0'
is implicitly convertible to integer value of 0
thus representing implementation-defined null pointer constant. This:
std::string foo('\0');
calls a constructor overload accepting pointer of type const char*
as a parameter and results in undefined behavior.
It is equivalent to passing 0
or NULL
:
std::string foo(0); // UB
std::string bar(NULL); // UB
The reference for the 4th and 5th constructor overloads states:
The behavior is undefined if s... including the case when s is a null pointer.
The second statement:
std::string foo{'\0'}; // OK
calls a constructor accepting std::initializer_list<char>
as a parameter and does not cause UB.
You could call the constructor overload accepting count number of char
s instead:
std::string s(1, '\0');
这篇关于C ++对象构造方法之间的区别的文章就介绍到这了,希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助,也希望大家多多支持IT屋!