I was reading about copy constructors for structs and i found this example:

#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;

struct SomeData {
    int * pd;
    string id;
    SomeData(SomeData & ref) {
        cout << "Copy Constructor called" << endl;
        pd = new int (*ref.pd);
        id = "Copy Constructed";
    SomeData(string name) {
        pd = new int(0);
        id = name;
        cout << "Constructor for " << id << endl;
    ~SomeData() {
        cout << "Destructor for " << id << endl;
        delete pd;

int main() {
    SomeData s("First");
    *s.pd = 9;
    SomeData s2=s;
    cout << *s2.pd << endl;
    return 0;

in the main, the member pd of SomeData is accessed using the dereference, but why is that, isn't the correct way is


why was it written like that in the example?

  • Take a look at the rule-of-3 and the rule-of-zero. The implicitly defined op= is catastrophically wrong. Dec 25 '14 at 3:09

This is an example of operator precedence not giving quite the results you expect. The example has the code

*s.pd = 9;

which is equivalent to the following:

*(s.pd) = 9;

You query why it isn't written as

s->pd = 9;

but this is equivalent to

(*s).pd = 9;

That is, the code in the example dereferences the value of pd that is a member of s, whereas the code you are asking about dereferences s (which is not legal as s is not a pointer and doesn't have an overload for the "->" operator).

This is because ".", the member selection operator binds more strongly than "*", the dereference operator.

See http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/operator_precedence for a complete list; "." has a precedence of 2, while "*" has a precedence of 3. Only "::" binds more strongly than ".".

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.