August 27, 20241 yr In a recent talk at C++OnSea, Arne Mertz highlighted common misuses of guidelines, including the Rule of Five. This discussion prompted me to reflect on a recurring pattern I've observed in C++ classes that explicitly default constructors and destructors, leading to unexpected behaviors with move semantics. Once More About the Rule of 5 by Sandor Dargo From the article: LetÎÃÃs first repeat what the rule of 5 says. The Rule of Five tells us that if we need to define any of a copy constructor, copy assignment operator, move constructor, move assignment operator or destructor then we usually need to define all five. Fair enough. Have you ever seen classes where the default constructor and destructor are explicitly defaulted? Like this? class SomeClass { public: â¬Ã¡â¬Ã¡â¬Ã¡ SomeClass() = default; â¬Ã¡â¬Ã¡â¬Ã¡ ~SomeClass() = default; â¬Ã¡â¬Ã¡â¬Ã¡ void foo(); private: â¬Ã¡â¬Ã¡â¬Ã¡ int m_num{42}; }; First of all, thatÎÃÃs not the best idea. You can simply remove them. But letÎÃÃs assume that you cannot remove the user-provided destructor for some reason. Maybe itÎÃÃs not defaulted and it does something. What does the famous Hinnant table tell us? View the full article
_5d4b8c.png)
_02926c.png)
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.