构造函数何时抛出异常是正确的?(或者在Objective C的情况下:什么情况下init ` er才应该返回nil?)
在我看来,如果对象不完整,构造函数应该失败——因此拒绝创建对象。也就是说,构造函数应该与它的调用者有一个合同,以提供一个函数和工作对象,在哪些方法可以被有意义地调用?这合理吗?
构造函数何时抛出异常是正确的?(或者在Objective C的情况下:什么情况下init ` er才应该返回nil?)
在我看来,如果对象不完整,构造函数应该失败——因此拒绝创建对象。也就是说,构造函数应该与它的调用者有一个合同,以提供一个函数和工作对象,在哪些方法可以被有意义地调用?这合理吗?
当前回答
由于部分创建的类可能导致的所有麻烦,我认为永远不会。
如果需要在构造过程中验证某些内容,请将构造函数设为私有并定义一个公共静态工厂方法。如果某些东西无效,该方法可以抛出。但是如果一切都检查出来了,它就调用构造函数,保证不会抛出。
其他回答
Throwing an exception during construction is a great way to make your code way more complex. Things that would seem simple suddenly become hard. For example, let's say you have a stack. How do you pop the stack and return the top value? Well, if the objects in the stack can throw in their constructors (constructing the temporary to return to the caller), you can't guarantee that you won't lose data (decrement stack pointer, construct return value using copy constructor of value in stack, which throws, and now have a stack that just lost an item)! This is why std::stack::pop does not return a value, and you have to call std::stack::top.
这个问题在这里有很好的描述,检查第10项,编写异常安全的代码。
是的,如果构造函数未能构建其内部部分之一,则它可以(通过选择)有责任抛出(并以某种语言声明)一个显式异常,这在构造函数文档中有适当的说明。
This is not the only option: It could finish the constructor and build an object, but with a method 'isCoherent()' returning false, in order to be able to signal an incoherent state (that may be preferable in certain case, in order to avoid a brutal interruption of the execution workflow due to an exception) Warning: as said by EricSchaefer in his comment, that can bring some complexity to the unit testing (a throw can increase the cyclomatic complexity of the function due to the condition that triggers it)
如果它因为调用者而失败(比如调用者提供了一个空参数,而被调用的构造函数需要一个非空参数),构造函数无论如何都会抛出一个未检查的运行时异常。
构造函数的任务是使对象进入可用状态。关于这个问题,基本上有两种观点。
一组人赞成两阶段建设。构造函数只是将对象带入一个休眠状态,在这种状态下它拒绝做任何工作。还有一个额外的函数来进行实际的初始化。
我一直不明白这种方法背后的原因。我坚决支持单阶段构造,即对象在构造后完全初始化并可用。
如果单阶段构造函数未能完全初始化对象,则应该抛出。如果对象不能初始化,则必须不允许它存在,因此构造函数必须抛出。
There is generally nothing to be gained by divorcing object initialization from construction. RAII is correct, a successful call to the constructor should either result in a fully initialized live object or it should fail, and ALL failures at any point in any code path should always throw an exception. You gain nothing by use of a separate init() method except additional complexity at some level. The ctor contract should be either it returns a functional valid object or it cleans up after itself and throws.
考虑一下,如果实现了单独的init方法,仍然必须调用它。它仍然有可能抛出异常,它们仍然必须被处理,而且它们实际上总是必须在构造函数之后立即被调用,除了现在你有4种可能的对象状态而不是2种(IE,已构造,初始化,未初始化,失败vs只是有效和不存在)。
In any case I've run across in 25 years of OO development cases where it seems like a separate init method would 'solve some problem' are design flaws. If you don't need an object NOW then you shouldn't be constructing it now, and if you do need it now then you need it initialized. KISS should always be the principle followed, along with the simple concept that the behavior, state, and API of any interface should reflect WHAT the object does, not HOW it does it, client code should not even be aware that the object has any kind of internal state that requires initialization, thus the init after pattern violates this principle.
Using factories or factory methods for all object creation, you can avoid invalid objects without throwing exceptions from constructors. The creation method should return the requested object if it's able to create one, or null if it's not. You lose a little bit of flexibility in handling construction errors in the user of a class, because returning null doesn't tell you what went wrong in the object creation. But it also avoids adding the complexity of multiple exception handlers every time you request an object, and the risk of catching exceptions you shouldn't handle.