Boost logo

Boost :

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-01 16:30:55

From: Neal Becker <ndbecker2_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart wrote:
> > From: Neal Becker <ndbecker2_at_[hidden]>
> >>
> >> I still disagree. Depending on default initialization is like depending
> >> on
> >> init of static variables to 0. If you really need a special init value,
> >> be
> >> explicit and say so. I see no logic to the default construct of complex
> >> to
> >
> > What's wrong with relying on static initialization to get you a
> > zero?
> Explicit is better than implicit. Have sympathy for those that must read
> the code. If you require something to be initialized, say so. Don't leave
> it to the reader to guess whether it had to be initialized to zero, or just
> was by accident.

I fail to see how relying on behavior of the language is not
having sympathy for those reading the code. This is akin to
explicitly invoking a default base ctor in an initializer list in
my mind.

Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer           
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at