From: Daniel Frey (d.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-24 12:18:41
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:18:51 +0200, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> "Daniel Frey" <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>> Ah, and while we're at it, anyone else hates the syntax and semantics
>>> of member initializers?
>>Well, it doesn't look very nice, but is there any real problem with it?
> Perhaps that initializers are silently executed in a different order
> than the one you specify? It should be an error if you don't provide the
> appropriate order.
This is true, although I use the compiler's warning about reordering to
protect me from it. AFAIK the standard doesn't require a diagnostic and it
would IMHO be better if the code would be rejected if the order is not
correct. It's easy to change your code to reflect the correct order and I
can't see any reason why you could need any different style.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk