Base class does not contain a constructor that takes '0' argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter Author
  • Start date Start date
A

Author

I have

class BaseClass
{
public BaseClass(string s1, string s2)
{
this.S1 = s1;
this.S2 = s2;
}
public string S1 { get; set;}
public string S2 { get; set;}
}

class SubClass: BaseClass
{
public SubClass(int int1, int int2)
{
this.Int1 = int1;
this.Int2 = int2;
}
public int Int1 { get; set; }
public int Int2 { get; set; }
}

VS2008 intellisense underlines the constructor of SubClass and says:

Error 1 'ConsoleApplication1.BaseClass' does not contain a constructor
that takes '0' arguments.

Why? Any hint is highly appreciated.
 
Author said:
I have

class BaseClass
{
public BaseClass(string s1, string s2)
{
this.S1 = s1;
this.S2 = s2;
}
public string S1 { get; set;}
public string S2 { get; set;}
}

class SubClass: BaseClass
{
public SubClass(int int1, int int2)
{
this.Int1 = int1;
this.Int2 = int2;
}
public int Int1 { get; set; }
public int Int2 { get; set; }
}

VS2008 intellisense underlines the constructor of SubClass and says:

Error 1 'ConsoleApplication1.BaseClass' does not contain a constructor
that takes '0' arguments.

Why? Any hint is highly appreciated.
Click to expand...

C# enforces that construction of the base class must be properly completed
before the derived class constructor is executed. Because your derived
constructor doesn't explicitly call a base class constructor, the compiler
automatically inserts a call to the constructor without arguments. But
there's no such constructor, so it fails.

To fix this, you must make a constructor available for the derived class to
call. In this case, initializing the properties does not seem to be
mandatory (since users can pass null for both, and even unset them later) so
there's no problem making a public parameterless constructor available. In
the general case, you could make a protected constructor available
specifically for derived classes to initialize the base state with.
 
Author said:
I have

class BaseClass
{
public BaseClass(string s1, string s2)
{
this.S1 = s1;
this.S2 = s2;
}
public string S1 { get; set;}
public string S2 { get; set;}
}

class SubClass: BaseClass
{
public SubClass(int int1, int int2)
{
this.Int1 = int1;
this.Int2 = int2;
}
public int Int1 { get; set; }
public int Int2 { get; set; }
}

VS2008 intellisense underlines the constructor of SubClass and says:

Error 1 'ConsoleApplication1.BaseClass' does not contain a constructor
that takes '0' arguments.

Why? Any hint is highly appreciated.
Click to expand...
Let's say you create an object of SubClass like this
SubClass sc = new SubClass(1,2);

Now, when subclass' object is created, it's base class object is also
created internally. So, it's constructor also must be invoked. Now, the
derived class is not explicitly specifying which constructor to use for
the base class, in which case the compiler searches for a constructor
with 0 parameters.

So, to solve this error, you can either add a default constructor to
BaseClass or do something like this

class SubClass : BaseClass
{
public SubClass(int int1, int int2):base("","")
{
this.Int1 = int1;
this.Int2 = int2;
}
public int Int1 { get; set; }
public int Int2 { get; set; }
}
 
Author,

The compiler basically assumes this when you write your constructor:

class SubClass : BaseClass
{
public SubClass(int int1, int int2) : base()
{

Since you have defined only one constructor in BaseClass and it takes
arguments, that's where the error comes from. Basically, you need to
explicitly call the constructor on the base class.
 
Many thanks to both of you.

Actually, I did notice that if I call the base class's contructor
using :base(blah blah), it error goes away.

So, the conclusion is: either the base class's constructor must be
explicitly called using base() or a parameterless constructor must be
provided for the base class. Correct?
 
Author said:
So, the conclusion is: either the base class's constructor must be
explicitly called using base() or a parameterless constructor must be
provided for the base class. Correct?
Click to expand...

Well, *a* base class constructor must be called (you can have any number of
them) and if you don't call one explicitly, there indeed must be a
parameterless one to call implicitly.
 
Well, *a* base class constructor must be called (you can have any number of
them) and if you don't call one explicitly, there indeed must be a
parameterless one to call implicitly.
Click to expand...

Perfecto! Gotcha. Thx.
 
Back
Top