std::vector and std::strings: Are they destroyed automatically? Yes (assuming member variables are not pointers to std::vector and std::string). If I have something like std::vector what happens when the vector destructor is called? Would it call automatically the destructor of myClass? Or only the vector is destroyed but all the Objects it contains are still existant … Read more
Within any non-static member function, this points to the object that the function was called on. It’s safe to use as long as that’s a valid object. Within the body of a constructor or destructor, there is a valid object of the class currently being constructed. However, if this is the base sub-object of some … Read more
Defining the body of the constructor INSIDE the class has the same effect of placing the function OUTSIDE the class with the “inline” keyword. In both cases it’s a hint to the compiler. An “inline” function doesn’t necessarily mean the function will be inlined. That depends on the complexity of the function and other rules.
Because Java is a garbage collected language you cannot predict when (or even if) an object will be destroyed. Hence there is no direct equivalent of a destructor. There is an inherited method called finalize, but this is called entirely at the discretion of the garbage collector. So for classes that need to explicitly tidy up, … Read more
It’s wrong to say that a compiler-generated default constructor takes no action. It is equivalent to a user-defined constructor with an empty body and an empty initializer list, but that doesn’t mean it takes no action. Here is what it does: It calls the base class’es default constructor. It initializes the vtable pointer, if the … Read more
The problem lies here: When you delete first, but then try to access first->next. Cache first->next into a temp variable of type node*, then do delete first to fix this:
You should not call your destructor explicitly. When you create your object on the stack (like you did) all you need is: When you create your object on the heap, you kinda need to delete your class before its destructor is called and memory is freed: (Failing to call delete on this last example will result in … Read more
I’d recommend using Python’s with statement for managing resources that need to be cleaned up. The problem with using an explicit close() statement is that you have to worry about people forgetting to call it at all or forgetting to place it in a finally block to prevent a resource leak when an exception occurs. To use the with statement, create a class … Read more
Why not do it much much simpler – with an elegant while-loop instead of trying to carefully analyze whether that overcompilcated for-loop is correct?