CLI array initialization in value class - arrays

Question

I know that value classes don't have an default constructor as the compiler initializes all elements in this class with zero. But arrays are in a value class are not initialized:
value class c_LocationVal
{
public:
double x, y, z;
c_LocationVal(double i_x, double i_y, double i_z) {x = i_x; y = i_y; z = i_z;}
};
typedef cli::array<c_LocationVal> arrloc;
value class c_Managed
{
public:
arrloc^ m_alocTest;
//c_Managed() { m_alocTest = gcnew arrloc(3); } --> not permitted
double funcManaged ()
{
return m_alocTest[0].x; --> error: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
}
};
I just could cheat and use:
c_Managed(int i) { m_alocTest = gcnew arrloc(3); }
but there must be another solution.
Can someone please tell me how to solve this?

Answer 1

The CLR only supports code inside of methods. Compilers emulate the behavior of a member initialization expression by creating a constructor, if necessary, and moving the code for the expression into the constructor.
Which explains why this isn't permitted, your expression requires a parameterless constructor and that's not legal for a value type.
Sure, your trick will work. But in general, you need to de-tune C++ assumptions a bit when you write C++/CLI code. There are no practical differences between a struct and a class in C++. But that's definitely not the case in managed code. Only ever use a value class for very simple types. Requiring initialization heavily tips the choice to a ref class. As does a value type having an array, you'd normally need a deep copy to make that work without accidents. Never fear the heap in C++/CLI, it is very fast.

Answer 2

A value class is always initialized with "null/0". So a managed reference in a value class will also always be initialized to "null". If you want to have a special initialization, then you only have the solution, you were pointing out: You need to create a special constructor which has some parameters to "initialize" the value class correctly.
The question is: Do you really need a value class which contains a managed reference??? Normally this should also be a ref class.
Also, what happens, if the value class is copied? What should happen with the reference? It will also directly copied! Is this intended? The goal of a value class is to provide a "real" copy! In your case it will not "fully copied"...
Pleas re-think if a value class is the best solution for your data storage...

Answer 3

Switch the public field to a property, and do lazy initialization when the property is retrieved.
value class c_Managed
{
private:
arrloc^ m_alocTest;
public:
arrloc^ AlocTest
{
arrloc^ get()
{
if(m_alocTest == nullptr)
{
msclr::lock(c_Managed::typeid)
if(m_alocTest == nullptr)
m_alocTest = gcnew arrloc(3);
}
return m_alocTest;
}
}
double funcManaged ()
{
return AlocTest[0].x;
}
};
The lock for the lazy initialization isn't ideal, but it's just about the only thing to lock on: this is a value type, so locking would box it and the lock would be on the box, not on the object itself. Since it's a value type, providing any reference type as a field to lock on would give a null reference, just like the array, so there's no help there. The only thing I can think to lock on is the type object itself for this type.