You always should define default constructor for your class. You must also define a copy constructor for your class if there are any pointers in the class. While it is not mandatory, failure to provide a default constructor can result in bad behavior, and failure to provide a copy constructor when you have pointers in the class will result in bad behavior. For example, without a default constructor, the compiler will not fully initialize the attributes of the class. It will initialize the virtual function table, and call base class constructors, but that is all - the attributes could be random garbage. For another example, without a copy constructor, the compiler will generate one that simply makes a bit wise copy of the attributes. If these attributes contain pointers, then you have two pointers to the same object, not necessarily a good thing, especially if one of them get "deleted".
No. if you wish to create an object that you plan on using in a java program then the answer is NO. You cannot initialize an object of a Java class without calling the constructor.
A copy constructor gets called any time an object needs to be copied. Unlike in some of the newer languages like Java, you can chose to pass objects either by reference or by value. When you pass by reference, only the address of the function is copied. However, if you pass by value, the whole object must be copied. In order to copy the object, the copy constructor will get called. If the copy constructor's parameter is not a reference, then the object will get passed by value. When the object gets passed by value, it needs to get copied so it will call the same copy constructor. Because the object is still being passed by value it'll call itself again to create a copy of itself. The copy constructor will continue to call itself until the stack overflows.
No.
Constructor is a special block of code similar to the method that is used to initialize the state of objects. If you do not define a constructor in a class, Java compiler automatically put a default constructor in the class.
Java, unlike C++ does not support copy constructors.
When any constructor is deffined in your class, the java compiler create a default no argument constructor for you. This constructor only have an invocation to the super class constructor (" super( ) ").
All Java programs would have a constructor... public class Test { public Test(){ ... } ..... } This is a constructor. Even if you dont code the constructor Java would automatically place a default constructor for compilation.
You always should define default constructor for your class. You must also define a copy constructor for your class if there are any pointers in the class. While it is not mandatory, failure to provide a default constructor can result in bad behavior, and failure to provide a copy constructor when you have pointers in the class will result in bad behavior. For example, without a default constructor, the compiler will not fully initialize the attributes of the class. It will initialize the virtual function table, and call base class constructors, but that is all - the attributes could be random garbage. For another example, without a copy constructor, the compiler will generate one that simply makes a bit wise copy of the attributes. If these attributes contain pointers, then you have two pointers to the same object, not necessarily a good thing, especially if one of them get "deleted".
Constructor is used to do something (written in constructor) immediately after object creation.
A copy constructor usually refers to a constructor which takes an object, and returns a copy of that object. I can think of no way to overload the constructor without changing its functionality.
What is the advantage of user-defined copy constructor
No. if you wish to create an object that you plan on using in a java program then the answer is NO. You cannot initialize an object of a Java class without calling the constructor.
A copy constructor gets called any time an object needs to be copied. Unlike in some of the newer languages like Java, you can chose to pass objects either by reference or by value. When you pass by reference, only the address of the function is copied. However, if you pass by value, the whole object must be copied. In order to copy the object, the copy constructor will get called. If the copy constructor's parameter is not a reference, then the object will get passed by value. When the object gets passed by value, it needs to get copied so it will call the same copy constructor. Because the object is still being passed by value it'll call itself again to create a copy of itself. The copy constructor will continue to call itself until the stack overflows.
No.
NO, we cannot create a contructor for an interface in java.
Constructor is not an alternative to class. In Java, you create classes; the classes contain methods - including the constructor, which can be viewed as a special method. If you want to have a constructor, you need a class that surrounds it, so it's not one or the other.