C++Talk.NET

Guest

===================================== MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Apologies for the delay in moderation; this appears to be caused
by my ISP (Cox) dropping and/or blocking e-mail.

===================================== END OF MODERATOR'S COMMENT
A common bug I often see is uninitialized member variables. I believe
the main reason for this is being unable to initialize class members
where they are declared. Because class members are initialized
separately from their definition, it can often be difficult to spot
which variables are being initialized and which ones are not. I've
read through the specs and can't see a reason why it couldn't be
added. I'm soliciting comments and hoping someone with the power to
make proposals might decide to champion this idea.

Initializers in the class declaration should come after initializers
in the constructor, but before the constructor definition.
Effectively, a compiler could append initializers in the class
definition to those in the constructor. All the rules about
initializers on a constructor would apply here as well. If a variable
is initialized in both places, the one in the constructor should take
precedence.

The following pieces of code would compile to exactly the same result:

class A : public B {
public:
A ( ) : B( 11 ), i( 42 ), p( 0 ) { }
A ( int q ) : B( q ), i( 42 ), p( 0 ) { }

int i;
char *p;
};

class A : public B {
public:
A ( ) : B( 11 ) { }
A ( int q ) : B( q ) { }

int i = 42;
char *p = 0;
};

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ]

Daniel Krügler · Guest

===================================== MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Apologies for any delays in moderation; this appears to be
caused by my ISP (Cox) dropping and/or blocking e-mail.

===================================== END OF MODERATOR'S COMMENT
On May 8, 5:11 am, bina...@gmail.com wrote: