Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 6015107
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 23, 20262026-05-23T02:47:17+00:00 2026-05-23T02:47:17+00:00

I like the idea of const member variables especially when I wrap C functions

  • 0

I like the idea of const member variables especially when I wrap C functions into classes. The constructor takes a resource handle (e.g. a file descriptor) that stays valid during the whole object life time and the destructor finally closes it. (That is the idea behind RAII, right?)

But with the C++0x move constructor i run into a problem. Since the destructor is also called on the “unloaded” object i need to prevent the cleanup of the resource handle. Since the member variable is const i have no way to assign the value -1 or INVALID_HANDLE (or equivalent values) to indicate to the destructor that it should not do anything.

Is there a way that the destructor is not called if the state of an object was moved to another object?

Example:

class File
{
public:
    // Kind of "named constructor" or "static factory method"
    static File open(const char *fileName, const char *modes)
    {
        FILE *handle = fopen(fileName, modes);
        return File(handle);
    }

private:
    FILE * const handle;

public:
    File(FILE *handle) : handle(handle)
    {
    }

    ~File()
    {
        fclose(handle);
    }

    File(File &&other) : handle(other.handle)
    {
        // The compiler should not call the destructor of the "other"
        // object.
    }

    File(const File &other) = delete;
    File &operator =(const File &other) = delete;
};
  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-23T02:47:18+00:00Added an answer on May 23, 2026 at 2:47 am

    No, there is no way to do this. I would suggest that if you’re really attached to the handle variable being const you should have a non-const flag member variable that indicates whether or not destruction should do anything.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have a file structure like this: file1.h extern const char *build_info[][3]; file1.cpp #include
I would like to trigger a specific constructor for a member variable based on
I like the idea of having Interfaces and Implementation separate. But how separate? Are
I like the idea of having only one return statement per method. What do
I like the idea of CardSpace but unlike OpenID it seems like a real
I like the idea of abstracting CellControllers in a heterogeneous UITableView as suggested by
I really like the idea of automatic binding generation like SWIG does. But it
I've been using virtualenv lately while developing in python. I like the idea of
sound like a terrible idea? Yeah I thought so too. Needless to say im
I like the MVVM idea of a RelayCommand that's exposed by the ViewModel. That's

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.