I got all but 8 questions right... i thought I might get only 1 or 2 correct because I've only been writing CPP for the last 5 or 6 days. Honestly, it all comes down to having an amazing instructor!!
In the Rule of 3 (and the Rule of 5) question, I think the three special member functions should be the destructor, the copy constructor and the copy assignment operator. It should not include the constructor as specified in the slides because we do not necessarily need the other 3 member functions if we define the constructor ourselves. This is also what is written on the cppreference screenshot on the answer slide.
Agreed, good catch -- that's also what in fact makes the math check out (destructor + copy constructor + copy-assignment = 3 special member functions to define if we have a custom constructor) :)
Mike, thank you for putting all of this wonderful content together! Your teaching style is fantastic and your examples are stellar; i.e., minimal code shown to demonstrate a specific concept. I am looking forward to learning more from you in the future! Thank you!
Hey Mike, Really appreciate these videos! Can't tell you how much they have been helping me elevate my C++ understanding, as well as general interview prep! Just wanted to give a quick feedback/correction on one of those slides (please correct me if im mistaken) On Class Misc. - $400, there seems to be a slight mistake. From looking at your previous lecture on Virtual destructors, the problem is that of the derived class destructor not being called (as opposed to the Base class). Therefore, the virtual base destructor fixes the problem by calling the derived class destructor (as the base destructor is already called in this example). Once again, I appreciate all the work you're doing. You're really helping from those who are starting off to people already in industry. Thanks!
Cheers! I have some videos on 'virtual' and the 'vtable' on this playlist to help. 'virtual' basically makes something overriddable, or a 'change-of-behavior' in a class hiearachy depending on the object instantiated.
Doesnt the virtual base class destructor ensures that the derived class constructor is called in the case of inheritance-base polymorphism 29:02 ? Nice video btw, I really enjoyed the game.
Copy constructors are provided by default by the compiler only when the member variables are primitives right ? If we have pointers to custom data types then it does not do it by default.
Copy constructors are always provided by the compiler if we do not provide our own. Even if you have other types within the class, the compiler will generate a naive 'member = copy_member' in the copy constructor.
Hi Mike! 6:14 you made the same mistake as you did in lesson 40. The first one in rule of three is a destructor not a constructor :) Thank you for you lessons!
Correct, my fault! (i.e. Rule of 3: if you define one of copy-constructor, destructor, or copy-assignment operator you need all 3) (Rule of 5: If you define move constructor or move-assignment operator, you need all 5 special member functions including the destructor, copy-constructor, and copy-assignment operator along with move-constructor and move-assignment)
I'm not sure this is a correct question or not but what if we delete all member function of that classes that are provided by default (constructor etc).
![SDL3.1.3 Stable ABI Preview - October 2024 [News]](/img/n.gif)
I got all but 8 questions right... i thought I might get only 1 or 2 correct because I've only been writing CPP for the last 5 or 6 days. Honestly, it all comes down to having an amazing instructor!!
Thank you for the kind words! 😁Lots of smart students on this channel!
In the Rule of 3 (and the Rule of 5) question, I think the three special member functions should be the destructor, the copy constructor and the copy assignment operator. It should not include the constructor as specified in the slides because we do not necessarily need the other 3 member functions if we define the constructor ourselves. This is also what is written on the cppreference screenshot on the answer slide.
Agreed, good catch -- that's also what in fact makes the math check out (destructor + copy constructor + copy-assignment = 3 special member functions to define if we have a custom constructor) :)
Very helpful review. More review videos of this style in the future would be great. Keep it up Mike!
Thank you for the kind words!
Mike, thank you for putting all of this wonderful content together! Your teaching style is fantastic and your examples are stellar; i.e., minimal code shown to demonstrate a specific concept. I am looking forward to learning more from you in the future! Thank you!
Thank you for the kind words! Looking forward to helping!
This was a wonderfully engaging format, thank you 干杯
Cheers!
Umpteenth time watching and reviewing
Thanks
More needed
Thanks again
Simply the best …….
Cheers, you are most welcome Joe!
Great video. This is a good way to revise. Excellent teaching as always. Thank you.
Cheers! Glad to hear it!
Thank you for your hard work.
Cheers!
Sweet and lovely video. Expecting more of these. thank you for your hard work
Thank you for your continued support! Yes, more videos coming in the series!
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the interview, this is the first time i have heard about POD 😊 I dont know about this type before 😀
Cheers -- happy this helped!
Hey Mike,
Really appreciate these videos! Can't tell you how much they have been helping me elevate my C++ understanding, as well as general interview prep! Just wanted to give a quick feedback/correction on one of those slides (please correct me if im mistaken)
On Class Misc. - $400, there seems to be a slight mistake. From looking at your previous lecture on Virtual destructors, the problem is that of the derived class destructor not being called (as opposed to the Base class). Therefore, the virtual base destructor fixes the problem by calling the derived class destructor (as the base destructor is already called in this example).
Once again, I appreciate all the work you're doing. You're really helping from those who are starting off to people already in industry. Thanks!
Cheers, thanks for catching that! And thank you for your support and kind words!
I got them all but "pods". I may have heard it before but dont think so. If i didn't get a job over that question i would be mad AF.
Would be sillly if they dinged you for that one -- but it's a convention I have had previously :)
Went very well until "virtual" started appearing! This reminded me that I don't really understand what it does exactly.
Cheers! I have some videos on 'virtual' and the 'vtable' on this playlist to help. 'virtual' basically makes something overriddable, or a 'change-of-behavior' in a class hiearachy depending on the object instantiated.
Great review! Thanks
Cheers! Thanks for the long term support!
Thank you, amazing content and effort!
Cheers, you are most welcome!
Great work Mike!
Cheers!
Your are incredible Man!!!
Thank you for the kind words 🙏 Enjoy! 😀
Doesnt the virtual base class destructor ensures that the derived class constructor is called in the case of inheritance-base polymorphism 29:02 ? Nice video btw, I really enjoyed the game.
Correct, virtual destructor ensures derived class constructor is called first (all other constructors also called as well)
For the first question : Is a enum class technically a user defined data type?
Yes, enum class is a user defined type
Copy constructors are provided by default by the compiler only when the member variables are primitives right ? If we have pointers to custom data types then it does not do it by default.
Copy constructors are always provided by the compiler if we do not provide our own. Even if you have other types within the class, the compiler will generate a naive 'member = copy_member' in the copy constructor.
Hi Mike! 6:14 you made the same mistake as you did in lesson 40. The first one in rule of three is a destructor not a constructor :) Thank you for you lessons!
@@andk6893 cheers, indeed that lesson needs a redo 🙂
@@MikeShah or maybe it's just a test if your students are attentive enough :)
@@andk6893 I'll accept that 😃
👍
Cheers!
Constructor in the Rule of 3/5? I don't think so...
Correct, my fault! (i.e. Rule of 3: if you define one of copy-constructor, destructor, or copy-assignment operator you need all 3) (Rule of 5: If you define move constructor or move-assignment operator, you need all 5 special member functions including the destructor, copy-constructor, and copy-assignment operator along with move-constructor and move-assignment)
I'm not sure this is a correct question or not but what if we delete all member function of that classes that are provided by default (constructor etc).
I suppose you could do that, and for example just have static member functions or static variables as part of the class :)