Why when let's say I have an object declared like this: Obj o1;
which is initialized by the default constructor (not very important here, how was o1
initialized, the point is it was initialized) and I create another object in this manner: Obj o2 = o1;
the copy constructor is implicitly called, but if I delete the copy constructor, then, I get a compile error. Why the object o1
is not assigned/copied to o2
, like here: Obj o1; Obj o2; o2 = o1;
? Why the compiler tries to call a constructor in any instance? Is the =
operator within Obj o2 = o1;
overloaded?

- 350
- 4
- 15
-
2*The equals sign, =, in copy-initialization of a named variable is not related to the assignment operator. Assignment operator overloads have no effect on copy-initialization.* [cppreference](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/copy_initialization) – alex_noname Nov 08 '21 at 08:54
-
1Assignment operator assumes the left side already exists. – Quimby Nov 08 '21 at 08:55
-
Copy-initialization might *elide* calling the copy-constructor, but the copy-constructor must still be available (i.e. not deleted) for it to be possible to copy the object. – Some programmer dude Nov 08 '21 at 08:56
-
Many symbols in C++ mean diffferent things in different contexts. `=` is one of them. – molbdnilo Nov 08 '21 at 08:57
1 Answers
As mentioned in comments, this
Obj o2 = o1;
has nothing to do with assignment. It is a little unfortunate, often confusing, use of =
for initialization when otherwise =
means assignment.
Also mentioned in comments, the operator=
has to assume that the left operator already exists. Consider this somewhat contrived example:
#include <vector>
struct my_vect {
my_vect() : data(2) {}
my_vect(const my_vect& other) : data(other.data) {}
my_vect& operator=(my_vect& other) {
// this has already been constructed,
// hence data.size() is 2 already
data[0] = other.data[0];
data[1] = other.data[1];
return *this;
}
private:
std::vector<int> data;
};
It is a structure that contains a std::vector
whose size is always 2
. The vector is initialized upon constructing a my_vect
. When assigning one my_vect
to another, then data
needs not be initialized. Only the values must be copied. Because operator=
assumes that the left hand side operator is already properly constructed (it merely copies to data[0]
and data[1]
) it cannot possibly be used to construct an object (in the example, accessing data[0]
or data[1]
would be out of bounds).
TL;DR: Constructors construct objects. Assignment assigns to an already existing object. Thats two fundamentally different things.

- 7,637
- 1
- 15
- 31

- 109,796
- 11
- 89
- 185
-
Yes, but here I have ``Obj o1 = o2;``, and ``Obj o1;`` is enough for initializing the object, as long as the default constructor is called, thus I expected ``Obj o1 = o2;`` to be executed as ``Obj o1; o1 = o2;`` as long as no copy constructor is provided. – pauk Nov 08 '21 at 11:12
-
-
@pauk this could be happen, but thats just not how C++ works. In general default construction plus subsequent assignment is more expensive than only copy construction, hence it is good that in C++ you have to explicitly ask for it when you want it. I mean nothing prevents you from writing `Obj o1; o1 = o2;` when that is what you want – 463035818_is_not_an_ai Nov 08 '21 at 11:56