Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Boost Array Initialization Technique

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                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;