[c++] C++: constructor initializer for arrays

I'm having a brain cramp... how do I initialize an array of objects properly in C++?

non-array example:

struct Foo { Foo(int x) { /* ... */  } };

struct Bar { 
     Foo foo;

     Bar() : foo(4) {}
};

array example:

struct Foo { Foo(int x) { /* ... */  } };

struct Baz { 
     Foo foo[3];

     // ??? I know the following syntax is wrong, but what's correct?
     Baz() : foo[0](4), foo[1](5), foo[2](6) {}
};

edit: Wild & crazy workaround ideas are appreciated, but they won't help me in my case. I'm working on an embedded processor where std::vector and other STL constructs are not available, and the obvious workaround is to make a default constructor and have an explicit init() method that can be called after construction-time, so that I don't have to use initializers at all. (This is one of those cases where I've gotten spoiled by Java's final keyword + flexibility with constructors.)

Just to update this question for C++11, this is now both possible to do and very natural:

struct Foo { Foo(int x) { /* ... */  } };

struct Baz { 
     Foo foo[3];

     Baz() : foo{{4}, {5}, {6}} { }
};

Those braces can also be elided for an even more concise:

struct Baz { 
     Foo foo[3];

     Baz() : foo{4, 5, 6} { }
};

Which can easily be extended to multi-dimensional arrays too:

struct Baz {
    Foo foo[3][2];

    Baz() : foo{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6} { }
};

You can do it, but it's not pretty:

#include <iostream>

class A {
    int mvalue;
public:
    A(int value) : mvalue(value) {}
    int value() { return mvalue; }
};

class B {
    // TODO: hack that respects alignment of A.. maybe C++14's alignof?
    char _hack[sizeof(A[3])];
    A* marr;
public:
    B() : marr(reinterpret_cast<A*>(_hack)) {
        new (&marr[0]) A(5);
        new (&marr[1]) A(6);
        new (&marr[2]) A(7);
    }

    A* arr() { return marr; }
};

int main(int argc, char** argv) {
    B b;
    A* arr = b.arr();
    std::cout << arr[0].value() << " " << arr[1].value() << " " << arr[2].value() << "\n";
    return 0;
}

If you put this in your code, I hope you have a VERY good reason.

Unfortunately there is no way to initialize array members till C++0x.

You could use a std::vector and push_back the Foo instances in the constructor body.

You could give Foo a default constructor (might be private and making Baz a friend).

You could use an array object that is copyable (boost or std::tr1) and initialize from a static array:

#include <boost/array.hpp>

struct Baz {

    boost::array<Foo, 3> foo;
    static boost::array<Foo, 3> initFoo;
    Baz() : foo(initFoo)
    {

    }
};

boost::array<Foo, 3> Baz::initFoo = { 4, 5, 6 };

in visual studio 2012 or above, you can do like this

struct Foo { Foo(int x) { /* ... */  } };

struct Baz { 
     Foo foo[3];

     Baz() : foo() { }
};

There is no array-construction syntax that ca be used in this context, at least not directly. You can accomplish what you're trying to accomplish by something along the lines of:

Bar::Bar()
{
    static const int inits [] = {4,5,6};
    static const size_t numInits = sizeof(inits)/sizeof(inits[0]);
    std::copy(&inits[0],&inits[numInits],foo);  // be careful that there are enough slots in foo
}

...but you'll need to give Foo a default constructor.

Only the default constructor can be called when creating objects in an array.

This seems to work, but I'm not convinced it's right:

#include <iostream>

struct Foo { int x; Foo(int x): x(x) { } };

struct Baz { 
     Foo foo[3];

    static int bar[3];
     // Hmm...
     Baz() : foo(bar) {}
};

int Baz::bar[3] = {4, 5, 6};

int main() {
    Baz z;
    std::cout << z.foo[1].x << "\n";
}

Output:

$ make arrayinit -B CXXFLAGS=-pedantic && ./arrayinit
g++ -pedantic    arrayinit.cpp   -o arrayinit
5

Caveat emptor.

Edit: nope, Comeau rejects it.

Another edit: This is kind of cheating, it just pushes the member-by-member array initialization to a different place. So it still requires Foo to have a default constructor, but if you don't have std::vector then you can implement for yourself the absolute bare minimum you need:

#include <iostream>

struct Foo { 
    int x; 
    Foo(int x): x(x) { }; 
    Foo(){}
};

// very stripped-down replacement for vector
struct Three { 
    Foo data[3]; 
    Three(int d0, int d1, int d2) {
        data[0] = d0;
        data[1] = d1;
        data[2] = d2;
    }
    Foo &operator[](int idx) { return data[idx]; }
    const Foo &operator[](int idx) const { return data[idx]; }
};

struct Baz { 
    Three foo;

    static Three bar;
    // construct foo using the copy ctor of Three with bar as parameter.
    Baz() : foo(bar) {}
    // or get rid of "bar" entirely and do this
    Baz(bool) : foo(4,5,6) {}
};

Three Baz::bar(4,5,6);

int main() {
    Baz z;
    std::cout << z.foo[1].x << "\n";
}

z.foo isn't actually an array, but it looks about as much like one as a vector does. Adding begin() and end() functions to Three is trivial.

Right now, you can't use the initializer list for array members. You're stuck doing it the hard way.

class Baz {
    Foo foo[3];

    Baz() {
        foo[0] = Foo(4);
        foo[1] = Foo(5);
        foo[2] = Foo(6);
    }
};

In C++0x you can write:

class Baz {
    Foo foo[3];

    Baz() : foo({4, 5, 6}) {}
};

In the specific case when the array is a data member of the class you can't initialize it in the current version of the language. There's no syntax for that. Either provide a default constructor for array elements or use std::vector.

A standalone array can be initialized with aggregate initializer

Foo foo[3] = { 4, 5, 6 };

but unfortunately there's no corresponding syntax for the constructor initializer list.

This is my solution for your reference:

struct Foo
{
    Foo(){}//used to make compiler happy!
    Foo(int x){/*...*/}
};

struct Bar
{
    Foo foo[3];

    Bar()
    {
        //initialize foo array here:
        for(int i=0;i<3;++i)
        {
            foo[i]=Foo(4+i);
        }
    }
};

You can use C++0x auto keyword together with template specialization on for example a function named boost::make_array() (similar to make_pair()). For the case of where N is either 1 or 2 arguments we can then write variant A as

namespace boost
{
/*! Construct Array from @p a. */
template <typename T>
boost::array<T,1> make_array(const T & a)
{
    return boost::array<T,2> ({{ a }});
}
/*! Construct Array from @p a, @p b. */
template <typename T>
boost::array<T,2> make_array(const T & a, const T & b)
{
    return boost::array<T,2> ({{ a, b }});
}
}

and variant B as

namespace boost {
/*! Construct Array from @p a. */
template <typename T>
boost::array<T,1> make_array(const T & a)
{
    boost::array<T,1> x;
    x[0] = a;
    return x;
}
/*! Construct Array from @p a, @p b. */
template <typename T>
boost::array<T,2> make_array(const T & a, const T & b)
{
    boost::array<T,2> x;
    x[0] = a;
    x[1] = b;
    return x;
}
}

GCC-4.6 with -std=gnu++0x and -O3 generates the exact same binary code for

auto x = boost::make_array(1,2);

using both A and B as it does for

boost::array<int, 2> x = {{1,2}};

For user defined types (UDT), though, variant B results in an extra copy constructor, which usually slow things down, and should therefore be avoided.

Note that boost::make_array errors when calling it with explicit char array literals as in the following case

auto x = boost::make_array("a","b");

I believe this is a good thing as const char* literals can be deceptive in their use.

Variadic templates, available in GCC since 4.5, can further be used reduce all template specialization boiler-plate code for each N into a single template definition of boost::make_array() defined as

/*! Construct Array from @p a, @p b. */
template <typename T, typename ... R>
boost::array<T,1+sizeof...(R)> make_array(T a, const R & ... b)
{
    return boost::array<T,1+sizeof...(R)>({{ a, b... }});
}

This works pretty much as we expect. The first argument determines boost::array template argument T and all other arguments gets converted into T. For some cases this may undesirable, but I'm not sure how if this is possible to specify using variadic templates.

Perhaps boost::make_array() should go into the Boost Libraries?

Ideas from a twisted mind :

class mytwistedclass{
static std::vector<int> initVector;
mytwistedclass()
{
    //initialise with initVector[0] and then delete it :-)
}

};

now set this initVector to something u want to before u instantiate an object. Then your objects are initialized with your parameters.

class C
{
   static const int myARRAY[10];  // only declaration !!!

   public:
   C(){}
   }

const int C::myARRAY[10]={0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};  // here is definition

int main(void)
{
   C myObj;
   }