C++Talk.NET

Tomás · Guest

On page 22 of the Standard, it gives the following example of a structure:

struct C {
string s; // string is the standard library class (clause 21)
};

And then it goes on to say that this is equivalent to:

struct C {
string s;

C(): s() { }

C(const C& x): s(x.s) { }

C& operator=(const C& x) { s = x.s; return *this; }

˜C() { }
};

While this is true, I think it's misleading as the example only works
because "s" is a user-defined class which has a constructor. I think it'd be
better to change the constructor definition to:

C() {}

This is "more correct" because it now works with a primitive type, e.g.:

struct C {
int s;
};

struct C {
int s;

C() { } /* s doesn't get default initialised */

C(const C& x): s(x.s) { }

C& operator=(const C& x) { s = x.s; return *this; }

˜C() { }
};

-Tomás

---
[ 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 ]

Guest · Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 2:21 am Post subject: Re: Slightly Misleading Example?

"Tomás" wrote: