Can anyone explain me in simple language and better if with an example why constructor don't have return types :!:

Probably because the are not explicitely called in your code, so what good would it do to return a value -- nobody is going to be listening.

The constructor is only called when you instantiate an object. There is no way to catch the return value of the constructor.

>Can anyone explain me in simple language and better if with an
>example why constructor don't have return types
Here's an idea. Show us how it could be done without breaking all kinds of existing code, and you'll answer your own question.

Thanx alot i guess it actually doesn't make any sense

I was searching net and came across one answer and it said having return types of constructor means taking address of constructor(which is illegal)...can u explain me this....

sorry for asking such queries (i am bit new to C++)

Nope. I don't know what taking the address of a function has to do with returning a value. constructors don't return values because c++ standards and language say they don't.

How can I handle a constructor that fails?

Another option -- don't put any code in the constructor that might cause it to fail. M$ MFC is good at that -- first instantiate the object and then call its Create() method. The constructor only initializes class data to some default value (normally 0). Then the Create() method initializes all the rest and either returns a value or throws and exception.

Yes, one could use MFC's 2-stage construction. However, my personal preference is still to to use the constructor to create the object, because I'm used to the RAII paradigm, and my own wrappers for the Windows API use it.