如果无法创建有效对象，则绝对应该从构造函数抛出异常。这允许您在类中提供适当的不变量。

在实践中，你可能必须非常小心。记住，在c++中，析构函数不会被调用，所以如果你在分配资源后抛出，你需要非常小心地正确处理它!

本页对c++中的情况进行了全面的讨论。

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.

如果无法创建有效对象，则绝对应该从构造函数抛出异常。这允许您在类中提供适当的不变量。

在实践中，你可能必须非常小心。记住，在c++中，析构函数不会被调用，所以如果你在分配资源后抛出，你需要非常小心地正确处理它!

本页对c++中的情况进行了全面的讨论。

我不确定是否有答案可以完全与语言无关。有些语言处理异常和内存管理的方式不同。

I've worked before under coding standards requiring exceptions never be used and only error codes on initializers, because developers had been burned by the language poorly handling exceptions. Languages without garbage collection will handle heap and stack very differently, which may matter for non RAII objects. It is important though that a team decide to be consistent so they know by default if they need to call initializers after constructors. All methods (including constructors) should also be well documented as to what exceptions they can throw, so callers know how to handle them.

我通常支持单阶段构造，因为很容易忘记初始化对象，但也有很多例外。

Your language support for exceptions isn't very good. You have a pressing design reason to still use new and delete Your initialization is processor intensive and should run async to the thread that created the object. You are creating a DLL that may be throwing exceptions outside it's interface to an application using a different language. In this case it may not be so much an issue of not throwing exceptions, but making sure they are caught before the public interface. (You can catch C++ exceptions in C#, but there are hoops to jump through.) Static constructors (C#)

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。

OO中通常的约定是对象方法确实有功能。

因此，作为一个推论，永远不要从构造函数/init中返回僵尸对象。

僵尸没有功能，可能缺少内部组件。只是一个空指针异常等待发生。

很多年前，我第一次在Objective C中制作僵尸。

就像所有的经验法则一样，也有一个“例外”。

一个特定的接口完全有可能有这样的契约 存在一个允许触发异常的方法“initialize”。 在调用initialize之前，实现此接口的对象可能不会正确响应除属性设置器之外的任何调用。在引导过程中，我在OO操作系统中的设备驱动程序中使用了这种方法，而且它是可行的。

一般来说，你不需要僵尸对象。在Smalltalk这样的语言中，使用变得有点冒火，但是过度使用变得也是一种糟糕的风格。be允许一个对象在原地变成另一个对象，因此不需要信封包装器(高级c++)或策略模式(GOF)。