From 6702316974020895280 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,fc1538f2aa3fc9f8 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-01-13 10:30:27 PST Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU!maxtal From: maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller) Subject: Re: Type System Message-ID: <1993Jan13.182315.23888@ucc.su.OZ.AU> Sender: news@ucc.su.OZ.AU Nntp-Posting-Host: extro.ucc.su.oz.au Organization: MAXTAL P/L C/- University Computing Centre, Sydney References: <1993Jan9.001948.28388@lucid.com> <1993Jan12.214547.20528@microsoft.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 18:23:15 GMT Lines: 30 In article <1993Jan12.214547.20528@microsoft.com> jimad@microsoft.com (Jim Adcock) writes: > >A* pa; > >A::A() const > >Such a const ctor can only give its members or base parts values via >the colon section initializers. Members cannot be changed within the >body of the constructor. Implies that all the base classes and members ought to have const constructors too. >For backwards compatibility, if you don't >declare a const ctor, then the loophole would be allowed to continue >in ctors of that class, and in which case members could continue to >be changed within the body of the ctor. Not just for backwards compatibility. For necessity? Many times I've needed (or thought I needed) to put things in the body. Example anyone? (Cant think of one: maybe const constructors are viable. In which case .. why not make them ALL const :-) -- ;---------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, maxtal@extro.ucc.su.oz.au Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA ;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------