From -3168139135064756205 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,e2cfdf64f67c7793 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit From: walter@digitalmars.nospamm.com ("Walter") Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Eliminating uninitialised variables Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:15:45 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Lines: 25 Sender: mail2news@demon.net Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++) Message-ID: <6x14d.132741$3l3.96020@attbi_s03> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: news.news.demon.net X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1095873348 29288 158.152.254.254 (22 Sep 2004 17:15:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:15:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Priority: 3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64-mulga_r1 (2004-01-11) on mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.64-mulga_r1 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Received: (from fjh@localhost) by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.9/Submit) id i8MHFjvC014545; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 03:15:45 +1000 (EST) X-Path: comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail X-NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:01:38 GMT X-Spam-Level: X-Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!news.cs.univ-paris8.fr!news.zanker.org!news.amigo.co.uk!news.clara.net!wagner.news.clara.net!194.159.246.34.MISMATCH!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!stump.algebra.com!devnull Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:2830 "John Nagle" wrote in message news:FQO3d.21860$bB7.16246@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com... > I'd suggest allowing initial values within class > declarations, as in > > class T { > char* p = 0; > }; > > Yes, you can do the same thing in each constructor's > initialization section. But it's not as obvious by > examination when someone left out an initialization, > because the initialization and declaration are at > different places. This is the approach D takes. It makes sense to put the default value where the declaration is, not off somewhere else. --- [ 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.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]