Why doesn't my compiler recognise “Bond() = default;”?
up vote
33
down vote
favorite
Please look at this code
class Bond
{
public:
Bond(int payments_per_year, int period_lengths_in_months);
Bond() = default;
private:
const int payments_per_year;
const int period_length_in_months;
};
int main()
{
Bond b; // Error here
}
When attempting to compile I get an error:
error C2280: 'Bond::Bond(void)': attempting to reference a deleted function".
It's not a "rule of 3" violation since I've added the default constructor back.
Why doesn't the compiler recognise Bond() = default;
?
c++ c++11
add a comment |
up vote
33
down vote
favorite
Please look at this code
class Bond
{
public:
Bond(int payments_per_year, int period_lengths_in_months);
Bond() = default;
private:
const int payments_per_year;
const int period_length_in_months;
};
int main()
{
Bond b; // Error here
}
When attempting to compile I get an error:
error C2280: 'Bond::Bond(void)': attempting to reference a deleted function".
It's not a "rule of 3" violation since I've added the default constructor back.
Why doesn't the compiler recognise Bond() = default;
?
c++ c++11
2
I have other erroruninitialized const member in 'const int'
. When you initialize constant member no more error produced.
– serge
Nov 9 at 12:14
2
Rule of three violation has got nothing to do with the problem at all, regardless of the presence of a (default) constructor.
– Konrad Rudolph
Nov 9 at 15:04
2
= default
ing a special member doesn't mean that it exists, but that the implicit one is generated. If the implicitly generated one doesn't exist, then you get this.
– Rakete1111
Nov 9 at 15:06
4
Even though we are quite likely to recognize the compiler from the error cited in this case, any question with "why my compiler" would benefit greatly from indicating which compiler, and which version of it.
– Matthieu M.
Nov 9 at 20:19
add a comment |
up vote
33
down vote
favorite
up vote
33
down vote
favorite
Please look at this code
class Bond
{
public:
Bond(int payments_per_year, int period_lengths_in_months);
Bond() = default;
private:
const int payments_per_year;
const int period_length_in_months;
};
int main()
{
Bond b; // Error here
}
When attempting to compile I get an error:
error C2280: 'Bond::Bond(void)': attempting to reference a deleted function".
It's not a "rule of 3" violation since I've added the default constructor back.
Why doesn't the compiler recognise Bond() = default;
?
c++ c++11
Please look at this code
class Bond
{
public:
Bond(int payments_per_year, int period_lengths_in_months);
Bond() = default;
private:
const int payments_per_year;
const int period_length_in_months;
};
int main()
{
Bond b; // Error here
}
When attempting to compile I get an error:
error C2280: 'Bond::Bond(void)': attempting to reference a deleted function".
It's not a "rule of 3" violation since I've added the default constructor back.
Why doesn't the compiler recognise Bond() = default;
?
c++ c++11
c++ c++11
edited Nov 10 at 7:01
Peter Mortensen
13.3k1983111
13.3k1983111
asked Nov 9 at 11:42
Sasidiran Sangamanautram
17827
17827
2
I have other erroruninitialized const member in 'const int'
. When you initialize constant member no more error produced.
– serge
Nov 9 at 12:14
2
Rule of three violation has got nothing to do with the problem at all, regardless of the presence of a (default) constructor.
– Konrad Rudolph
Nov 9 at 15:04
2
= default
ing a special member doesn't mean that it exists, but that the implicit one is generated. If the implicitly generated one doesn't exist, then you get this.
– Rakete1111
Nov 9 at 15:06
4
Even though we are quite likely to recognize the compiler from the error cited in this case, any question with "why my compiler" would benefit greatly from indicating which compiler, and which version of it.
– Matthieu M.
Nov 9 at 20:19
add a comment |
2
I have other erroruninitialized const member in 'const int'
. When you initialize constant member no more error produced.
– serge
Nov 9 at 12:14
2
Rule of three violation has got nothing to do with the problem at all, regardless of the presence of a (default) constructor.
– Konrad Rudolph
Nov 9 at 15:04
2
= default
ing a special member doesn't mean that it exists, but that the implicit one is generated. If the implicitly generated one doesn't exist, then you get this.
– Rakete1111
Nov 9 at 15:06
4
Even though we are quite likely to recognize the compiler from the error cited in this case, any question with "why my compiler" would benefit greatly from indicating which compiler, and which version of it.
– Matthieu M.
Nov 9 at 20:19
2
2
I have other error
uninitialized const member in 'const int'
. When you initialize constant member no more error produced.– serge
Nov 9 at 12:14
I have other error
uninitialized const member in 'const int'
. When you initialize constant member no more error produced.– serge
Nov 9 at 12:14
2
2
Rule of three violation has got nothing to do with the problem at all, regardless of the presence of a (default) constructor.
– Konrad Rudolph
Nov 9 at 15:04
Rule of three violation has got nothing to do with the problem at all, regardless of the presence of a (default) constructor.
– Konrad Rudolph
Nov 9 at 15:04
2
2
= default
ing a special member doesn't mean that it exists, but that the implicit one is generated. If the implicitly generated one doesn't exist, then you get this.– Rakete1111
Nov 9 at 15:06
= default
ing a special member doesn't mean that it exists, but that the implicit one is generated. If the implicitly generated one doesn't exist, then you get this.– Rakete1111
Nov 9 at 15:06
4
4
Even though we are quite likely to recognize the compiler from the error cited in this case, any question with "why my compiler" would benefit greatly from indicating which compiler, and which version of it.
– Matthieu M.
Nov 9 at 20:19
Even though we are quite likely to recognize the compiler from the error cited in this case, any question with "why my compiler" would benefit greatly from indicating which compiler, and which version of it.
– Matthieu M.
Nov 9 at 20:19
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
22
down vote
accepted
You are being affected by section [class.default.ctor]p2 of the draft C++ standard (or [class.ctor]p5 in C++11) which says:
A defaulted default constructor for class X is defined as deleted if:
...
- any non-variant non-static data member of const-qualified type (or array thereof) with no brace-or-equal-initializer does not have a user-provided default constructor,
...
They possible key to fixing your issue is with the phrase with no brace-or-equal-initializer so if you provide brace-or-equal-initializer that will fix your issue e.g.:
const int payments_per_year{12};
const int period_length_in_months{48};
brace-or-equal-initializer does not require braces, we can see this the grammar:
brace-or-equal-initializer:
= initializer-clause
braced-init-list
but using uniform initialization has some advantages such as making narrowing conversions ill-formed that it is worth getting used to using them.
Both gcc and clang provide more meaningful diagnostics for this see the live godbolt session. Sometimes it can be helpful to try your code on multiple compilers, especially if you have a minimal test case like this e.g. clang says:
warning: explicitly defaulted default constructor is implicitly deleted [-Wdefaulted-function-deleted]
Bond() = default;
^
note: default constructor of 'Bond' is implicitly deleted because field 'payments_per_year' of const-qualified type 'const int' would not be initialized
const int payments_per_year;
^
...
1
It may be worth filing a bug report, the diagnostic could be more meaningful.
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 14:14
1
Some examples of [uniform initialization catching bugs that came up recently](twitter.com/shafikyaghmour/status/1058737227184844800
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 18:14
2
thank you for this detail answer.
– Sasidiran Sangamanautram
Nov 12 at 8:27
add a comment |
up vote
49
down vote
The default constructor is suppressed since there are constant members that need to be explicitly initialised.
Therefore, due to that suppression, writing Bond() = default
does not reintroduce the default constructor.
(You can see this effect by removing all the constructors in the class - you still can't instantiate a b
.)
If you drop the const
from the members then all will be well; although another alternative is to supply a brace-or-equal-initializer for each const
member;
const int payments_per_year = 2;
const int period_length_in_months = 6;
for example.
add a comment |
up vote
23
down vote
Another fix, is to specify a default value in the declaration of the constants:
const int payments_per_year = {12};
This can still be overridden by the valued constructor, but allows the default constructor to proceed.
This is also a very flexible way to simplify your multiple constructor cases.
1
Do we need the braces?
– Paul Sanders
Nov 9 at 14:35
2
Equals and braces is definitely weird. Not sure what it actually means. Init from an initializer_list? Anyway: in-class member initializers are – well – initializers, and the syntax rules for initialization apply. That means either = or {}.
– besc
Nov 9 at 14:57
6
@PaulSanders no, you don't need braces but uniform initialization has a lot of advantages such as making narrowing conversions ill-formed that it is worth getting used to using them. See my update below.
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 17:17
4
@ShafikYaghmour: You could keep the braces and drop the equal though.
– Matthieu M.
Nov 9 at 20:20
1
@ShafikYaghmour: Yep, and that's part of the reason why I much prefer your answer (the other being actual standard quotes).
– Matthieu M.
Nov 11 at 12:02
|
show 2 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
22
down vote
accepted
You are being affected by section [class.default.ctor]p2 of the draft C++ standard (or [class.ctor]p5 in C++11) which says:
A defaulted default constructor for class X is defined as deleted if:
...
- any non-variant non-static data member of const-qualified type (or array thereof) with no brace-or-equal-initializer does not have a user-provided default constructor,
...
They possible key to fixing your issue is with the phrase with no brace-or-equal-initializer so if you provide brace-or-equal-initializer that will fix your issue e.g.:
const int payments_per_year{12};
const int period_length_in_months{48};
brace-or-equal-initializer does not require braces, we can see this the grammar:
brace-or-equal-initializer:
= initializer-clause
braced-init-list
but using uniform initialization has some advantages such as making narrowing conversions ill-formed that it is worth getting used to using them.
Both gcc and clang provide more meaningful diagnostics for this see the live godbolt session. Sometimes it can be helpful to try your code on multiple compilers, especially if you have a minimal test case like this e.g. clang says:
warning: explicitly defaulted default constructor is implicitly deleted [-Wdefaulted-function-deleted]
Bond() = default;
^
note: default constructor of 'Bond' is implicitly deleted because field 'payments_per_year' of const-qualified type 'const int' would not be initialized
const int payments_per_year;
^
...
1
It may be worth filing a bug report, the diagnostic could be more meaningful.
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 14:14
1
Some examples of [uniform initialization catching bugs that came up recently](twitter.com/shafikyaghmour/status/1058737227184844800
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 18:14
2
thank you for this detail answer.
– Sasidiran Sangamanautram
Nov 12 at 8:27
add a comment |
up vote
22
down vote
accepted
You are being affected by section [class.default.ctor]p2 of the draft C++ standard (or [class.ctor]p5 in C++11) which says:
A defaulted default constructor for class X is defined as deleted if:
...
- any non-variant non-static data member of const-qualified type (or array thereof) with no brace-or-equal-initializer does not have a user-provided default constructor,
...
They possible key to fixing your issue is with the phrase with no brace-or-equal-initializer so if you provide brace-or-equal-initializer that will fix your issue e.g.:
const int payments_per_year{12};
const int period_length_in_months{48};
brace-or-equal-initializer does not require braces, we can see this the grammar:
brace-or-equal-initializer:
= initializer-clause
braced-init-list
but using uniform initialization has some advantages such as making narrowing conversions ill-formed that it is worth getting used to using them.
Both gcc and clang provide more meaningful diagnostics for this see the live godbolt session. Sometimes it can be helpful to try your code on multiple compilers, especially if you have a minimal test case like this e.g. clang says:
warning: explicitly defaulted default constructor is implicitly deleted [-Wdefaulted-function-deleted]
Bond() = default;
^
note: default constructor of 'Bond' is implicitly deleted because field 'payments_per_year' of const-qualified type 'const int' would not be initialized
const int payments_per_year;
^
...
1
It may be worth filing a bug report, the diagnostic could be more meaningful.
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 14:14
1
Some examples of [uniform initialization catching bugs that came up recently](twitter.com/shafikyaghmour/status/1058737227184844800
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 18:14
2
thank you for this detail answer.
– Sasidiran Sangamanautram
Nov 12 at 8:27
add a comment |
up vote
22
down vote
accepted
up vote
22
down vote
accepted
You are being affected by section [class.default.ctor]p2 of the draft C++ standard (or [class.ctor]p5 in C++11) which says:
A defaulted default constructor for class X is defined as deleted if:
...
- any non-variant non-static data member of const-qualified type (or array thereof) with no brace-or-equal-initializer does not have a user-provided default constructor,
...
They possible key to fixing your issue is with the phrase with no brace-or-equal-initializer so if you provide brace-or-equal-initializer that will fix your issue e.g.:
const int payments_per_year{12};
const int period_length_in_months{48};
brace-or-equal-initializer does not require braces, we can see this the grammar:
brace-or-equal-initializer:
= initializer-clause
braced-init-list
but using uniform initialization has some advantages such as making narrowing conversions ill-formed that it is worth getting used to using them.
Both gcc and clang provide more meaningful diagnostics for this see the live godbolt session. Sometimes it can be helpful to try your code on multiple compilers, especially if you have a minimal test case like this e.g. clang says:
warning: explicitly defaulted default constructor is implicitly deleted [-Wdefaulted-function-deleted]
Bond() = default;
^
note: default constructor of 'Bond' is implicitly deleted because field 'payments_per_year' of const-qualified type 'const int' would not be initialized
const int payments_per_year;
^
...
You are being affected by section [class.default.ctor]p2 of the draft C++ standard (or [class.ctor]p5 in C++11) which says:
A defaulted default constructor for class X is defined as deleted if:
...
- any non-variant non-static data member of const-qualified type (or array thereof) with no brace-or-equal-initializer does not have a user-provided default constructor,
...
They possible key to fixing your issue is with the phrase with no brace-or-equal-initializer so if you provide brace-or-equal-initializer that will fix your issue e.g.:
const int payments_per_year{12};
const int period_length_in_months{48};
brace-or-equal-initializer does not require braces, we can see this the grammar:
brace-or-equal-initializer:
= initializer-clause
braced-init-list
but using uniform initialization has some advantages such as making narrowing conversions ill-formed that it is worth getting used to using them.
Both gcc and clang provide more meaningful diagnostics for this see the live godbolt session. Sometimes it can be helpful to try your code on multiple compilers, especially if you have a minimal test case like this e.g. clang says:
warning: explicitly defaulted default constructor is implicitly deleted [-Wdefaulted-function-deleted]
Bond() = default;
^
note: default constructor of 'Bond' is implicitly deleted because field 'payments_per_year' of const-qualified type 'const int' would not be initialized
const int payments_per_year;
^
...
edited Nov 12 at 8:26
answered Nov 9 at 14:07
Shafik Yaghmour
123k23309510
123k23309510
1
It may be worth filing a bug report, the diagnostic could be more meaningful.
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 14:14
1
Some examples of [uniform initialization catching bugs that came up recently](twitter.com/shafikyaghmour/status/1058737227184844800
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 18:14
2
thank you for this detail answer.
– Sasidiran Sangamanautram
Nov 12 at 8:27
add a comment |
1
It may be worth filing a bug report, the diagnostic could be more meaningful.
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 14:14
1
Some examples of [uniform initialization catching bugs that came up recently](twitter.com/shafikyaghmour/status/1058737227184844800
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 18:14
2
thank you for this detail answer.
– Sasidiran Sangamanautram
Nov 12 at 8:27
1
1
It may be worth filing a bug report, the diagnostic could be more meaningful.
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 14:14
It may be worth filing a bug report, the diagnostic could be more meaningful.
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 14:14
1
1
Some examples of [uniform initialization catching bugs that came up recently](twitter.com/shafikyaghmour/status/1058737227184844800
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 18:14
Some examples of [uniform initialization catching bugs that came up recently](twitter.com/shafikyaghmour/status/1058737227184844800
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 18:14
2
2
thank you for this detail answer.
– Sasidiran Sangamanautram
Nov 12 at 8:27
thank you for this detail answer.
– Sasidiran Sangamanautram
Nov 12 at 8:27
add a comment |
up vote
49
down vote
The default constructor is suppressed since there are constant members that need to be explicitly initialised.
Therefore, due to that suppression, writing Bond() = default
does not reintroduce the default constructor.
(You can see this effect by removing all the constructors in the class - you still can't instantiate a b
.)
If you drop the const
from the members then all will be well; although another alternative is to supply a brace-or-equal-initializer for each const
member;
const int payments_per_year = 2;
const int period_length_in_months = 6;
for example.
add a comment |
up vote
49
down vote
The default constructor is suppressed since there are constant members that need to be explicitly initialised.
Therefore, due to that suppression, writing Bond() = default
does not reintroduce the default constructor.
(You can see this effect by removing all the constructors in the class - you still can't instantiate a b
.)
If you drop the const
from the members then all will be well; although another alternative is to supply a brace-or-equal-initializer for each const
member;
const int payments_per_year = 2;
const int period_length_in_months = 6;
for example.
add a comment |
up vote
49
down vote
up vote
49
down vote
The default constructor is suppressed since there are constant members that need to be explicitly initialised.
Therefore, due to that suppression, writing Bond() = default
does not reintroduce the default constructor.
(You can see this effect by removing all the constructors in the class - you still can't instantiate a b
.)
If you drop the const
from the members then all will be well; although another alternative is to supply a brace-or-equal-initializer for each const
member;
const int payments_per_year = 2;
const int period_length_in_months = 6;
for example.
The default constructor is suppressed since there are constant members that need to be explicitly initialised.
Therefore, due to that suppression, writing Bond() = default
does not reintroduce the default constructor.
(You can see this effect by removing all the constructors in the class - you still can't instantiate a b
.)
If you drop the const
from the members then all will be well; although another alternative is to supply a brace-or-equal-initializer for each const
member;
const int payments_per_year = 2;
const int period_length_in_months = 6;
for example.
edited Nov 15 at 8:04
answered Nov 9 at 11:44
Bathsheba
172k27244366
172k27244366
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
23
down vote
Another fix, is to specify a default value in the declaration of the constants:
const int payments_per_year = {12};
This can still be overridden by the valued constructor, but allows the default constructor to proceed.
This is also a very flexible way to simplify your multiple constructor cases.
1
Do we need the braces?
– Paul Sanders
Nov 9 at 14:35
2
Equals and braces is definitely weird. Not sure what it actually means. Init from an initializer_list? Anyway: in-class member initializers are – well – initializers, and the syntax rules for initialization apply. That means either = or {}.
– besc
Nov 9 at 14:57
6
@PaulSanders no, you don't need braces but uniform initialization has a lot of advantages such as making narrowing conversions ill-formed that it is worth getting used to using them. See my update below.
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 17:17
4
@ShafikYaghmour: You could keep the braces and drop the equal though.
– Matthieu M.
Nov 9 at 20:20
1
@ShafikYaghmour: Yep, and that's part of the reason why I much prefer your answer (the other being actual standard quotes).
– Matthieu M.
Nov 11 at 12:02
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
23
down vote
Another fix, is to specify a default value in the declaration of the constants:
const int payments_per_year = {12};
This can still be overridden by the valued constructor, but allows the default constructor to proceed.
This is also a very flexible way to simplify your multiple constructor cases.
1
Do we need the braces?
– Paul Sanders
Nov 9 at 14:35
2
Equals and braces is definitely weird. Not sure what it actually means. Init from an initializer_list? Anyway: in-class member initializers are – well – initializers, and the syntax rules for initialization apply. That means either = or {}.
– besc
Nov 9 at 14:57
6
@PaulSanders no, you don't need braces but uniform initialization has a lot of advantages such as making narrowing conversions ill-formed that it is worth getting used to using them. See my update below.
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 17:17
4
@ShafikYaghmour: You could keep the braces and drop the equal though.
– Matthieu M.
Nov 9 at 20:20
1
@ShafikYaghmour: Yep, and that's part of the reason why I much prefer your answer (the other being actual standard quotes).
– Matthieu M.
Nov 11 at 12:02
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
23
down vote
up vote
23
down vote
Another fix, is to specify a default value in the declaration of the constants:
const int payments_per_year = {12};
This can still be overridden by the valued constructor, but allows the default constructor to proceed.
This is also a very flexible way to simplify your multiple constructor cases.
Another fix, is to specify a default value in the declaration of the constants:
const int payments_per_year = {12};
This can still be overridden by the valued constructor, but allows the default constructor to proceed.
This is also a very flexible way to simplify your multiple constructor cases.
answered Nov 9 at 12:14
Gem Taylor
1,775216
1,775216
1
Do we need the braces?
– Paul Sanders
Nov 9 at 14:35
2
Equals and braces is definitely weird. Not sure what it actually means. Init from an initializer_list? Anyway: in-class member initializers are – well – initializers, and the syntax rules for initialization apply. That means either = or {}.
– besc
Nov 9 at 14:57
6
@PaulSanders no, you don't need braces but uniform initialization has a lot of advantages such as making narrowing conversions ill-formed that it is worth getting used to using them. See my update below.
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 17:17
4
@ShafikYaghmour: You could keep the braces and drop the equal though.
– Matthieu M.
Nov 9 at 20:20
1
@ShafikYaghmour: Yep, and that's part of the reason why I much prefer your answer (the other being actual standard quotes).
– Matthieu M.
Nov 11 at 12:02
|
show 2 more comments
1
Do we need the braces?
– Paul Sanders
Nov 9 at 14:35
2
Equals and braces is definitely weird. Not sure what it actually means. Init from an initializer_list? Anyway: in-class member initializers are – well – initializers, and the syntax rules for initialization apply. That means either = or {}.
– besc
Nov 9 at 14:57
6
@PaulSanders no, you don't need braces but uniform initialization has a lot of advantages such as making narrowing conversions ill-formed that it is worth getting used to using them. See my update below.
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 17:17
4
@ShafikYaghmour: You could keep the braces and drop the equal though.
– Matthieu M.
Nov 9 at 20:20
1
@ShafikYaghmour: Yep, and that's part of the reason why I much prefer your answer (the other being actual standard quotes).
– Matthieu M.
Nov 11 at 12:02
1
1
Do we need the braces?
– Paul Sanders
Nov 9 at 14:35
Do we need the braces?
– Paul Sanders
Nov 9 at 14:35
2
2
Equals and braces is definitely weird. Not sure what it actually means. Init from an initializer_list? Anyway: in-class member initializers are – well – initializers, and the syntax rules for initialization apply. That means either = or {}.
– besc
Nov 9 at 14:57
Equals and braces is definitely weird. Not sure what it actually means. Init from an initializer_list? Anyway: in-class member initializers are – well – initializers, and the syntax rules for initialization apply. That means either = or {}.
– besc
Nov 9 at 14:57
6
6
@PaulSanders no, you don't need braces but uniform initialization has a lot of advantages such as making narrowing conversions ill-formed that it is worth getting used to using them. See my update below.
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 17:17
@PaulSanders no, you don't need braces but uniform initialization has a lot of advantages such as making narrowing conversions ill-formed that it is worth getting used to using them. See my update below.
– Shafik Yaghmour
Nov 9 at 17:17
4
4
@ShafikYaghmour: You could keep the braces and drop the equal though.
– Matthieu M.
Nov 9 at 20:20
@ShafikYaghmour: You could keep the braces and drop the equal though.
– Matthieu M.
Nov 9 at 20:20
1
1
@ShafikYaghmour: Yep, and that's part of the reason why I much prefer your answer (the other being actual standard quotes).
– Matthieu M.
Nov 11 at 12:02
@ShafikYaghmour: Yep, and that's part of the reason why I much prefer your answer (the other being actual standard quotes).
– Matthieu M.
Nov 11 at 12:02
|
show 2 more comments
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53225106%2fwhy-doesnt-my-compiler-recognise-bond-default%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
I have other error
uninitialized const member in 'const int'
. When you initialize constant member no more error produced.– serge
Nov 9 at 12:14
2
Rule of three violation has got nothing to do with the problem at all, regardless of the presence of a (default) constructor.
– Konrad Rudolph
Nov 9 at 15:04
2
= default
ing a special member doesn't mean that it exists, but that the implicit one is generated. If the implicitly generated one doesn't exist, then you get this.– Rakete1111
Nov 9 at 15:06
4
Even though we are quite likely to recognize the compiler from the error cited in this case, any question with "why my compiler" would benefit greatly from indicating which compiler, and which version of it.
– Matthieu M.
Nov 9 at 20:19