Skip to main content

Functions inside constructor should throw (if they fail)

This is a for constructors, which do non-trivial resource allocation
and initialization using helper member functions in the class. Exceptions
raised in such member functions should be propagated upto the constructor
and not eat them. In other words, such member functions should throw
exception if they can't satisfy their contract even though they provide
strong exception safety guarantee. Exception propagated upto
the constructor will be automatically propagated where the object is being
constructed indicating failure in object construction. Otherwise, silently
eating exceptions during object initialization will create an object in
an inconsistent state. The scope in which it is created will never know
that actually the object construction failed. If object construction can
be reasonably performed even in the face of exception, then it need not be
propagated out.

Example, LStack: A Stack implemented as a linked-list.

LStack::LStack (const LStack & s)
this->copy_all_nodes (s);

/// Following function provides strong exception safety guarantee
LStack::copy_all_nodes (const LStack &s)
try {
/// Copy nodes from the linked list of s into this's linked-list
/// copying of list elements may fail at arbitrary intermediate
/// position.

catch (...) {
this->delete_partially_initialized_list ();
/// throw; /// Should be done.

In the above case, copy_all_nodes is flowed because it failed to satisfy its
contract and still did not indicate its failure to the constructor.
Consequently, the client trying to use copy of LStack object will
be disappointed for sure.

This is important in case of constructor because it is difficult to tell
that object construction failed because there is no return value.


Wow! this blog is good. it is really excellent c++ blog. I like this very much. I am learning programming and hope your blog can help me.
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I think I will leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
I know very much about C++ and is in good practices but never heard this one. It is new to me.

Popular posts from this blog

Multi-dimensional arrays in C++11

What new can be said about multi-dimensional arrays in C++? As it turns out, quite a bit! With the advent of C++11, we get new standard library class std::array. We also get new language features, such as template aliases and variadic templates. So I'll talk about interesting ways in which they come together.

It all started with a simple question of how to define a multi-dimensional std::array. It is a great example of deceptively simple things. Are the following the two arrays identical except that one is native and the other one is std::array?

int native[3][4];
std::array<std::array<int, 3>, 4> arr;

No! They are not. In fact, arr is more like an int[4][3]. Note the difference in the array subscripts. The native array is an array of 3 elements where every element is itself an array of 4 integers. 3 rows and 4 columns. If you want a std::array with the same layout, what you really need is:

std::array<std::array<int, 4>, 3> arr;

That's quite annoying for two r…

Understanding Fold Expressions

C++17 has an interesting new feature called fold expressions. Fold expressions offer a compact syntax to apply a binary operation to the elements of a parameter pack. Here’s an example. template <typename... Args> auto addall(Args... args) { return (... + args); } addall(1,2,3,4,5); // returns 15. This particular example is a unary left fold. It's equivalent to ((((1+2)+3)+4)+5). It reduces/folds the parameter pack of integers into a single integer by applying the binary operator successively. It's unary because it does not explicitly specify an init (a.k.a. identity) argument. So, let add it. template <typename... Args> auto addall(Args... args) { return (0 + ... + args); } addall(1,2,3,4,5); // returns 15. This version of addall is a binary left fold. The init argument is 0 and it's redundant (in this case). That's because this fold expression is equivalent to (((((0+1)+2)+3)+4)+5). Explicit identity elements will come in handy a little la…

Folding Monadic Functions

In the previous two blog posts (Understanding Fold Expressions and Folding Functions) we looked at the basic usage of C++17 fold expressions and how simple functions can be folded to create a composite one. We’ll continue our stride and see how "embellished" functions may be composed in fold expressions.

First, let me define what I mean by embellished functions. Instead of just returning a simple value, these functions are going to return a generic container of the desired value. The choice of container is very broad but not arbitrary. There are some constraints on the container and once you select a generic container, all functions must return values of the same container. Let's begin with std::vector.
// Hide the allocator template argument of std::vector. // It causes problems and is irrelevant here. template <class T> struct Vector : std::vector<T> {}; struct Continent { }; struct Country { }; struct State { }; struct City { }; auto get_countries…