Re: Most needed/desired features in C++

From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-20 11:55:00

--- In boost_at_y..., "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...> wrote:
> > > foo[2] foos = { [10, 'a'], [20, 'b'] };
> > 
> > How about:
> > 
> > foo foos[2] = { foo(10, 'a'), foo(20, 'b') };
> 
> Sorry, quite true.  I was trying to generalize a different problem 
> and made a horrific mistake in doing so.  What I was trying to 
> illustrate was a simple concept for object literals, but object 
> literals aren't needed in this case.

To try and recover some from my emberassment at this stream of 
thought mistake ;).

I was brain storming about a suggestion on the C++ relfector (very) 
recently about object literals.  I've had need for them in the past, 
but the only example that easily comes to mind was in constructing a 
vector statically, and to simplify things in my post here I just 
switched to arrays.  Sticking with vectors I'd like something along 
the lines of:

vector<int> foo({1, 2, 3, 4}, 4);

Though the size parameter would be nice to eliminate as well.  The 
problem with this example, though, is it shows a solution using 
something other then object literals and still doesn't illustrate the 
need.  Unfortunately I'm having trouble recalling the few times I 
would have liked to have object literals that didn't involve 
something like the above, and honestly with out recalling that the 
syntax I provided could well not serve any way.

So, I'll just cower in my corner now ;).

Bill Kempf