Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara The Ask Question Wizard is Live! Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experienceWhy use pointers?Pretty-print C++ STL containersC++ pointers local in functionsHow C++ reference worksWhy is reading lines from stdin much slower in C++ than Python?Why should I use a pointer rather than the object itself?Pointers as Function Parameters ExampleReturn class object pointer from another classwhy should we use std::move semantic with unique pointers?Why does my object appear to be on the heap without using `new`?

Button changing its text & action. Good or terrible?

Quantum Toffoli gate equation

Can we generate random numbers using irrational numbers like π and e?

Word to describe a time interval

Why don't hard Brexiteers insist on a hard border to prevent illegal immigration after Brexit?

Accepted by European university, rejected by all American ones I applied to? Possible reasons?

What other Star Trek series did the main TNG cast show up in?

Categorical vs continuous feature selection/engineering

Pascal records and Mathematica programming

Pretty sure I'm over complicating my loops but unsure how to simplify

Can withdrawing asylum be illegal?

How to handle characters who are more educated than the author?

Free operad over a monoid object

What is the most efficient way to store a numeric range?

Merge multiple DataFrames Pandas

Can the Right Ascension and Argument of Perigee of a spacecraft's orbit keep varying by themselves with time?

60's-70's movie: home appliances revolting against the owners

The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG 1397BC53640DB551

Do working physicists consider Newtonian mechanics to be "falsified"?

Homework question about an engine pulling a train

Is 'stolen' appropriate word?

Is there a way to generate uniformly distributed points on a sphere from a fixed amount of random real numbers per point?

Keeping a retro style to sci-fi spaceships?

Is an up-to-date browser secure on an out-of-date OS?



Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
The Ask Question Wizard is Live!
Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experienceWhy use pointers?Pretty-print C++ STL containersC++ pointers local in functionsHow C++ reference worksWhy is reading lines from stdin much slower in C++ than Python?Why should I use a pointer rather than the object itself?Pointers as Function Parameters ExampleReturn class object pointer from another classwhy should we use std::move semantic with unique pointers?Why does my object appear to be on the heap without using `new`?



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;








21















Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?



#include <iostream>
#include <memory>

using namespace std;

class Class

public:
Class(int a): int_(a)std::cout << "constr" << std::endl;
~Class()std::cout << "destr" << std::endl;
int int_;

;

int main()

Class a(4);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr2 = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr3 = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::cout << ptr->int_ << std::endl;
std::cout << ptr2->int_ << std::endl;
std::cout << ptr3->int_ << std::endl;

return 0;



Output:



constr
4
4
4
destr
destr
destr
destr









share|improve this question



















  • 21





    Copy construction.

    – user4581301
    Mar 29 at 15:01






  • 1





    Try this: a.int_ = 5; after you create each unique_ptr and before you print the contents of each pointer

    – alter igel
    Mar 29 at 15:08






  • 1





    Creating several unique_ptr to the same instance will almost certainly lead to undefined behavior, but that's not what you are doing here. Something like auto ptr2 = std::unique_ptr<Class>(ptr.get()); would create a second std::unique_ptr that points to the same instance as ptr does, and that would be problematic.

    – François Andrieux
    Mar 29 at 15:08











  • Demo with user-defined copy constructor (called 3 times). Exemplifies the underlying copy construction.

    – TrebledJ
    Mar 30 at 14:31

















21















Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?



#include <iostream>
#include <memory>

using namespace std;

class Class

public:
Class(int a): int_(a)std::cout << "constr" << std::endl;
~Class()std::cout << "destr" << std::endl;
int int_;

;

int main()

Class a(4);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr2 = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr3 = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::cout << ptr->int_ << std::endl;
std::cout << ptr2->int_ << std::endl;
std::cout << ptr3->int_ << std::endl;

return 0;



Output:



constr
4
4
4
destr
destr
destr
destr









share|improve this question



















  • 21





    Copy construction.

    – user4581301
    Mar 29 at 15:01






  • 1





    Try this: a.int_ = 5; after you create each unique_ptr and before you print the contents of each pointer

    – alter igel
    Mar 29 at 15:08






  • 1





    Creating several unique_ptr to the same instance will almost certainly lead to undefined behavior, but that's not what you are doing here. Something like auto ptr2 = std::unique_ptr<Class>(ptr.get()); would create a second std::unique_ptr that points to the same instance as ptr does, and that would be problematic.

    – François Andrieux
    Mar 29 at 15:08











  • Demo with user-defined copy constructor (called 3 times). Exemplifies the underlying copy construction.

    – TrebledJ
    Mar 30 at 14:31













21












21








21


2






Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?



#include <iostream>
#include <memory>

using namespace std;

class Class

public:
Class(int a): int_(a)std::cout << "constr" << std::endl;
~Class()std::cout << "destr" << std::endl;
int int_;

;

int main()

Class a(4);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr2 = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr3 = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::cout << ptr->int_ << std::endl;
std::cout << ptr2->int_ << std::endl;
std::cout << ptr3->int_ << std::endl;

return 0;



Output:



constr
4
4
4
destr
destr
destr
destr









share|improve this question
















Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?



#include <iostream>
#include <memory>

using namespace std;

class Class

public:
Class(int a): int_(a)std::cout << "constr" << std::endl;
~Class()std::cout << "destr" << std::endl;
int int_;

;

int main()

Class a(4);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr2 = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr3 = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::cout << ptr->int_ << std::endl;
std::cout << ptr2->int_ << std::endl;
std::cout << ptr3->int_ << std::endl;

return 0;



Output:



constr
4
4
4
destr
destr
destr
destr






c++ pointers unique-ptr






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 30 at 14:25









TrebledJ

3,86421430




3,86421430










asked Mar 29 at 15:00









Lokas BeardLokas Beard

1076




1076







  • 21





    Copy construction.

    – user4581301
    Mar 29 at 15:01






  • 1





    Try this: a.int_ = 5; after you create each unique_ptr and before you print the contents of each pointer

    – alter igel
    Mar 29 at 15:08






  • 1





    Creating several unique_ptr to the same instance will almost certainly lead to undefined behavior, but that's not what you are doing here. Something like auto ptr2 = std::unique_ptr<Class>(ptr.get()); would create a second std::unique_ptr that points to the same instance as ptr does, and that would be problematic.

    – François Andrieux
    Mar 29 at 15:08











  • Demo with user-defined copy constructor (called 3 times). Exemplifies the underlying copy construction.

    – TrebledJ
    Mar 30 at 14:31












  • 21





    Copy construction.

    – user4581301
    Mar 29 at 15:01






  • 1





    Try this: a.int_ = 5; after you create each unique_ptr and before you print the contents of each pointer

    – alter igel
    Mar 29 at 15:08






  • 1





    Creating several unique_ptr to the same instance will almost certainly lead to undefined behavior, but that's not what you are doing here. Something like auto ptr2 = std::unique_ptr<Class>(ptr.get()); would create a second std::unique_ptr that points to the same instance as ptr does, and that would be problematic.

    – François Andrieux
    Mar 29 at 15:08











  • Demo with user-defined copy constructor (called 3 times). Exemplifies the underlying copy construction.

    – TrebledJ
    Mar 30 at 14:31







21




21





Copy construction.

– user4581301
Mar 29 at 15:01





Copy construction.

– user4581301
Mar 29 at 15:01




1




1





Try this: a.int_ = 5; after you create each unique_ptr and before you print the contents of each pointer

– alter igel
Mar 29 at 15:08





Try this: a.int_ = 5; after you create each unique_ptr and before you print the contents of each pointer

– alter igel
Mar 29 at 15:08




1




1





Creating several unique_ptr to the same instance will almost certainly lead to undefined behavior, but that's not what you are doing here. Something like auto ptr2 = std::unique_ptr<Class>(ptr.get()); would create a second std::unique_ptr that points to the same instance as ptr does, and that would be problematic.

– François Andrieux
Mar 29 at 15:08





Creating several unique_ptr to the same instance will almost certainly lead to undefined behavior, but that's not what you are doing here. Something like auto ptr2 = std::unique_ptr<Class>(ptr.get()); would create a second std::unique_ptr that points to the same instance as ptr does, and that would be problematic.

– François Andrieux
Mar 29 at 15:08













Demo with user-defined copy constructor (called 3 times). Exemplifies the underlying copy construction.

– TrebledJ
Mar 30 at 14:31





Demo with user-defined copy constructor (called 3 times). Exemplifies the underlying copy construction.

– TrebledJ
Mar 30 at 14:31












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















40














Why not?



You are not creating multiple unique_ptr instances pointing to the same Class instance, but you are instead allocating three new Class instances on the heap, copy-constructed from a. Every unique_ptr points to a different instance.




std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);


The above means: create a new instance of Class on the heap, copy-constructed from a, and give ownership of it to a new std::unique_ptr instance with name ptr.






share|improve this answer























  • What i don't understand is he didn't provide a copy constructor. I know that if you don't create a custom constructor, the compiler will generate for you default, copy, move, etc. But, in this case, he provided a custom constructor.

    – Jordan Motta
    Mar 29 at 15:48






  • 11





    @JordanMotta: adding a non-default constructor does not inhibit implicit generation of the copy constructor. See i.stack.imgur.com/b2VBV.png

    – Vittorio Romeo
    Mar 29 at 16:10



















21















Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?




You're not allowed to do that*, so it's a good thing you're not doing that!



Don't forget, this:



std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);


is this**:



std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(new Class(a));


not this:



std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);


std::make_unique creates a thing and gives you a unique_ptr to that thing. It does so by forwarding its arguments to the thing's constructor. Admittedly this can be confusing when you pass in the name of an existing object, leading to the copy constructor being used.



tl;dr: You're creating copies of a.



* Well, with a no-op deleter you could do it safely, but let's save that conversation for another day…
** More or less…






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    you can prove this to yourself by ptr2->_int = 6; and then 7 and so on. You will see that changing the Class one pointer points to has no effect on the others. They are just a bunch of copies.

    – Kate Gregory
    Mar 29 at 16:26











  • Cunning of you to place the TD;DR version at the bottom of the answer, guaranteeing that most people will read the the full version first. Another simple proof is to remove the copy constructor (Class(const Class &) =delete;) the copy constructor and watch the compiler choke.

    – user4581301
    Mar 29 at 16:51






  • 1





    @user4581301 Conclusions and summaries have been used for centuries. Feel free to write your own answer.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Mar 30 at 17:26


















11















Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?




You're allowed to make multiple copies of the object, because the class is copyable.




"Unique" in unique_ptr doesn't mean that the pointed object is the unique instance of its class. It means that no other pointer should have ownership of the pointed object. In your example, each unique pointer points to a separate instance; each of the uniquely owned by the respective pointer.



You could violate the uniqueness like this:



std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);


Could: The program would be well-formed and compiler would be required to compile it. But the behaviour of the program would then be undefined, so you very much should not do that.






share|improve this answer

























    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    );
    );
    , "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55420227%2fwhy-am-i-allowed-to-create-multiple-unique-pointers-from-a-single-object%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    40














    Why not?



    You are not creating multiple unique_ptr instances pointing to the same Class instance, but you are instead allocating three new Class instances on the heap, copy-constructed from a. Every unique_ptr points to a different instance.




    std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);


    The above means: create a new instance of Class on the heap, copy-constructed from a, and give ownership of it to a new std::unique_ptr instance with name ptr.






    share|improve this answer























    • What i don't understand is he didn't provide a copy constructor. I know that if you don't create a custom constructor, the compiler will generate for you default, copy, move, etc. But, in this case, he provided a custom constructor.

      – Jordan Motta
      Mar 29 at 15:48






    • 11





      @JordanMotta: adding a non-default constructor does not inhibit implicit generation of the copy constructor. See i.stack.imgur.com/b2VBV.png

      – Vittorio Romeo
      Mar 29 at 16:10
















    40














    Why not?



    You are not creating multiple unique_ptr instances pointing to the same Class instance, but you are instead allocating three new Class instances on the heap, copy-constructed from a. Every unique_ptr points to a different instance.




    std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);


    The above means: create a new instance of Class on the heap, copy-constructed from a, and give ownership of it to a new std::unique_ptr instance with name ptr.






    share|improve this answer























    • What i don't understand is he didn't provide a copy constructor. I know that if you don't create a custom constructor, the compiler will generate for you default, copy, move, etc. But, in this case, he provided a custom constructor.

      – Jordan Motta
      Mar 29 at 15:48






    • 11





      @JordanMotta: adding a non-default constructor does not inhibit implicit generation of the copy constructor. See i.stack.imgur.com/b2VBV.png

      – Vittorio Romeo
      Mar 29 at 16:10














    40












    40








    40







    Why not?



    You are not creating multiple unique_ptr instances pointing to the same Class instance, but you are instead allocating three new Class instances on the heap, copy-constructed from a. Every unique_ptr points to a different instance.




    std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);


    The above means: create a new instance of Class on the heap, copy-constructed from a, and give ownership of it to a new std::unique_ptr instance with name ptr.






    share|improve this answer













    Why not?



    You are not creating multiple unique_ptr instances pointing to the same Class instance, but you are instead allocating three new Class instances on the heap, copy-constructed from a. Every unique_ptr points to a different instance.




    std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);


    The above means: create a new instance of Class on the heap, copy-constructed from a, and give ownership of it to a new std::unique_ptr instance with name ptr.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Mar 29 at 15:03









    Vittorio RomeoVittorio Romeo

    59.6k17165308




    59.6k17165308












    • What i don't understand is he didn't provide a copy constructor. I know that if you don't create a custom constructor, the compiler will generate for you default, copy, move, etc. But, in this case, he provided a custom constructor.

      – Jordan Motta
      Mar 29 at 15:48






    • 11





      @JordanMotta: adding a non-default constructor does not inhibit implicit generation of the copy constructor. See i.stack.imgur.com/b2VBV.png

      – Vittorio Romeo
      Mar 29 at 16:10


















    • What i don't understand is he didn't provide a copy constructor. I know that if you don't create a custom constructor, the compiler will generate for you default, copy, move, etc. But, in this case, he provided a custom constructor.

      – Jordan Motta
      Mar 29 at 15:48






    • 11





      @JordanMotta: adding a non-default constructor does not inhibit implicit generation of the copy constructor. See i.stack.imgur.com/b2VBV.png

      – Vittorio Romeo
      Mar 29 at 16:10

















    What i don't understand is he didn't provide a copy constructor. I know that if you don't create a custom constructor, the compiler will generate for you default, copy, move, etc. But, in this case, he provided a custom constructor.

    – Jordan Motta
    Mar 29 at 15:48





    What i don't understand is he didn't provide a copy constructor. I know that if you don't create a custom constructor, the compiler will generate for you default, copy, move, etc. But, in this case, he provided a custom constructor.

    – Jordan Motta
    Mar 29 at 15:48




    11




    11





    @JordanMotta: adding a non-default constructor does not inhibit implicit generation of the copy constructor. See i.stack.imgur.com/b2VBV.png

    – Vittorio Romeo
    Mar 29 at 16:10






    @JordanMotta: adding a non-default constructor does not inhibit implicit generation of the copy constructor. See i.stack.imgur.com/b2VBV.png

    – Vittorio Romeo
    Mar 29 at 16:10














    21















    Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?




    You're not allowed to do that*, so it's a good thing you're not doing that!



    Don't forget, this:



    std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);


    is this**:



    std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(new Class(a));


    not this:



    std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);


    std::make_unique creates a thing and gives you a unique_ptr to that thing. It does so by forwarding its arguments to the thing's constructor. Admittedly this can be confusing when you pass in the name of an existing object, leading to the copy constructor being used.



    tl;dr: You're creating copies of a.



    * Well, with a no-op deleter you could do it safely, but let's save that conversation for another day…
    ** More or less…






    share|improve this answer




















    • 1





      you can prove this to yourself by ptr2->_int = 6; and then 7 and so on. You will see that changing the Class one pointer points to has no effect on the others. They are just a bunch of copies.

      – Kate Gregory
      Mar 29 at 16:26











    • Cunning of you to place the TD;DR version at the bottom of the answer, guaranteeing that most people will read the the full version first. Another simple proof is to remove the copy constructor (Class(const Class &) =delete;) the copy constructor and watch the compiler choke.

      – user4581301
      Mar 29 at 16:51






    • 1





      @user4581301 Conclusions and summaries have been used for centuries. Feel free to write your own answer.

      – Lightness Races in Orbit
      Mar 30 at 17:26















    21















    Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?




    You're not allowed to do that*, so it's a good thing you're not doing that!



    Don't forget, this:



    std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);


    is this**:



    std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(new Class(a));


    not this:



    std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);


    std::make_unique creates a thing and gives you a unique_ptr to that thing. It does so by forwarding its arguments to the thing's constructor. Admittedly this can be confusing when you pass in the name of an existing object, leading to the copy constructor being used.



    tl;dr: You're creating copies of a.



    * Well, with a no-op deleter you could do it safely, but let's save that conversation for another day…
    ** More or less…






    share|improve this answer




















    • 1





      you can prove this to yourself by ptr2->_int = 6; and then 7 and so on. You will see that changing the Class one pointer points to has no effect on the others. They are just a bunch of copies.

      – Kate Gregory
      Mar 29 at 16:26











    • Cunning of you to place the TD;DR version at the bottom of the answer, guaranteeing that most people will read the the full version first. Another simple proof is to remove the copy constructor (Class(const Class &) =delete;) the copy constructor and watch the compiler choke.

      – user4581301
      Mar 29 at 16:51






    • 1





      @user4581301 Conclusions and summaries have been used for centuries. Feel free to write your own answer.

      – Lightness Races in Orbit
      Mar 30 at 17:26













    21












    21








    21








    Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?




    You're not allowed to do that*, so it's a good thing you're not doing that!



    Don't forget, this:



    std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);


    is this**:



    std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(new Class(a));


    not this:



    std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);


    std::make_unique creates a thing and gives you a unique_ptr to that thing. It does so by forwarding its arguments to the thing's constructor. Admittedly this can be confusing when you pass in the name of an existing object, leading to the copy constructor being used.



    tl;dr: You're creating copies of a.



    * Well, with a no-op deleter you could do it safely, but let's save that conversation for another day…
    ** More or less…






    share|improve this answer
















    Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?




    You're not allowed to do that*, so it's a good thing you're not doing that!



    Don't forget, this:



    std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);


    is this**:



    std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(new Class(a));


    not this:



    std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);


    std::make_unique creates a thing and gives you a unique_ptr to that thing. It does so by forwarding its arguments to the thing's constructor. Admittedly this can be confusing when you pass in the name of an existing object, leading to the copy constructor being used.



    tl;dr: You're creating copies of a.



    * Well, with a no-op deleter you could do it safely, but let's save that conversation for another day…
    ** More or less…







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Mar 29 at 15:23

























    answered Mar 29 at 15:17









    Lightness Races in OrbitLightness Races in Orbit

    295k55479816




    295k55479816







    • 1





      you can prove this to yourself by ptr2->_int = 6; and then 7 and so on. You will see that changing the Class one pointer points to has no effect on the others. They are just a bunch of copies.

      – Kate Gregory
      Mar 29 at 16:26











    • Cunning of you to place the TD;DR version at the bottom of the answer, guaranteeing that most people will read the the full version first. Another simple proof is to remove the copy constructor (Class(const Class &) =delete;) the copy constructor and watch the compiler choke.

      – user4581301
      Mar 29 at 16:51






    • 1





      @user4581301 Conclusions and summaries have been used for centuries. Feel free to write your own answer.

      – Lightness Races in Orbit
      Mar 30 at 17:26












    • 1





      you can prove this to yourself by ptr2->_int = 6; and then 7 and so on. You will see that changing the Class one pointer points to has no effect on the others. They are just a bunch of copies.

      – Kate Gregory
      Mar 29 at 16:26











    • Cunning of you to place the TD;DR version at the bottom of the answer, guaranteeing that most people will read the the full version first. Another simple proof is to remove the copy constructor (Class(const Class &) =delete;) the copy constructor and watch the compiler choke.

      – user4581301
      Mar 29 at 16:51






    • 1





      @user4581301 Conclusions and summaries have been used for centuries. Feel free to write your own answer.

      – Lightness Races in Orbit
      Mar 30 at 17:26







    1




    1





    you can prove this to yourself by ptr2->_int = 6; and then 7 and so on. You will see that changing the Class one pointer points to has no effect on the others. They are just a bunch of copies.

    – Kate Gregory
    Mar 29 at 16:26





    you can prove this to yourself by ptr2->_int = 6; and then 7 and so on. You will see that changing the Class one pointer points to has no effect on the others. They are just a bunch of copies.

    – Kate Gregory
    Mar 29 at 16:26













    Cunning of you to place the TD;DR version at the bottom of the answer, guaranteeing that most people will read the the full version first. Another simple proof is to remove the copy constructor (Class(const Class &) =delete;) the copy constructor and watch the compiler choke.

    – user4581301
    Mar 29 at 16:51





    Cunning of you to place the TD;DR version at the bottom of the answer, guaranteeing that most people will read the the full version first. Another simple proof is to remove the copy constructor (Class(const Class &) =delete;) the copy constructor and watch the compiler choke.

    – user4581301
    Mar 29 at 16:51




    1




    1





    @user4581301 Conclusions and summaries have been used for centuries. Feel free to write your own answer.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Mar 30 at 17:26





    @user4581301 Conclusions and summaries have been used for centuries. Feel free to write your own answer.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Mar 30 at 17:26











    11















    Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?




    You're allowed to make multiple copies of the object, because the class is copyable.




    "Unique" in unique_ptr doesn't mean that the pointed object is the unique instance of its class. It means that no other pointer should have ownership of the pointed object. In your example, each unique pointer points to a separate instance; each of the uniquely owned by the respective pointer.



    You could violate the uniqueness like this:



    std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);


    Could: The program would be well-formed and compiler would be required to compile it. But the behaviour of the program would then be undefined, so you very much should not do that.






    share|improve this answer





























      11















      Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?




      You're allowed to make multiple copies of the object, because the class is copyable.




      "Unique" in unique_ptr doesn't mean that the pointed object is the unique instance of its class. It means that no other pointer should have ownership of the pointed object. In your example, each unique pointer points to a separate instance; each of the uniquely owned by the respective pointer.



      You could violate the uniqueness like this:



      std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);


      Could: The program would be well-formed and compiler would be required to compile it. But the behaviour of the program would then be undefined, so you very much should not do that.






      share|improve this answer



























        11












        11








        11








        Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?




        You're allowed to make multiple copies of the object, because the class is copyable.




        "Unique" in unique_ptr doesn't mean that the pointed object is the unique instance of its class. It means that no other pointer should have ownership of the pointed object. In your example, each unique pointer points to a separate instance; each of the uniquely owned by the respective pointer.



        You could violate the uniqueness like this:



        std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);


        Could: The program would be well-formed and compiler would be required to compile it. But the behaviour of the program would then be undefined, so you very much should not do that.






        share|improve this answer
















        Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?




        You're allowed to make multiple copies of the object, because the class is copyable.




        "Unique" in unique_ptr doesn't mean that the pointed object is the unique instance of its class. It means that no other pointer should have ownership of the pointed object. In your example, each unique pointer points to a separate instance; each of the uniquely owned by the respective pointer.



        You could violate the uniqueness like this:



        std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);


        Could: The program would be well-formed and compiler would be required to compile it. But the behaviour of the program would then be undefined, so you very much should not do that.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Mar 29 at 15:25

























        answered Mar 29 at 15:12









        eerorikaeerorika

        90k664136




        90k664136



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55420227%2fwhy-am-i-allowed-to-create-multiple-unique-pointers-from-a-single-object%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Adding axes to figuresAdding axes labels to LaTeX figuresLaTeX equivalent of ConTeXt buffersRotate a node but not its content: the case of the ellipse decorationHow to define the default vertical distance between nodes?TikZ scaling graphic and adjust node position and keep font sizeNumerical conditional within tikz keys?adding axes to shapesAlign axes across subfiguresAdding figures with a certain orderLine up nested tikz enviroments or how to get rid of themAdding axes labels to LaTeX figures

            Luettelo Yhdysvaltain laivaston lentotukialuksista Lähteet | Navigointivalikko

            Gary (muusikko) Sisällysluettelo Historia | Rockin' High | Lähteet | Aiheesta muualla | NavigointivalikkoInfobox OKTuomas "Gary" Keskinen Ancaran kitaristiksiProjekti Rockin' High