Is no parentheses on a constructor with no arguments a language standard?

c++ constructor standards
mring picture mring · Feb 23, 2010 · Viewed 29.8k times · Source

I was compiling a C++ program in Cygwin using g++ and I had a class whose constructor had no arguments. I had the lines:

MyClass myObj();
myObj.function1();

And when trying to compile it, I got the message:

error: request for member 'function1' in 'myObj', which is of non-class type 'MyClass ()()'

After a little research, I found that the fix was to change that first line to

MyClass myObj;

I could swear I've done empty constructor declarations with parentheses in C++ before. Is this probably a limitation of the compiler I'm using or does the language standard really say don't use parentheses for a constructor without arguments?

Answer

CB Bailey picture CB Bailey · Feb 23, 2010

Although MyClass myObj(); could be parsed as an object definition with an empty initializer or a function declaration the language standard specifies that the ambiguity is always resolved in favour of the function declaration. An empty parentheses initializer is allowed in other contexts e.g. in a new expression or constructing a value-initialized temporary.

Related questions

What does the explicit keyword mean?

What does the explicit keyword mean in C++?

Read More
What are the rules for calling the superclass constructor?

What are the C++ rules for calling the superclass constructor from a subclass one? For example, I know in Java, you must do it as the first line of the subclass constructor (and if you don't, an implicit call to …

Read More
Struct Constructor in C++?

Can a struct have a constructor in C++? I have been trying to solve this problem but I am not getting the syntax.

Read More