home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: jamshid@io.com (Jamshid Afshar)
- Message-ID: <4gvte1$qvd@xanadu.io.com>
- X-Original-Date: 27 Feb 1996 15:34:57 -0600
- Path: in2.uu.net!bounce-back
- Date: 28 Feb 96 01:14:21 GMT
- Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au
- Return-Path: <daemon@meeker.UCAR.EDU>
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Subject: Re: Q: default constructor for fundamental types?
- Organization: Illuminati Online, Austin, Texas, USA
- References: <4glrdc$dqo@ra.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> <4gsvhn$csi@clarknet.clark.net> <9602271131.AA18225@lts.sel.alcatel.de>
- X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++
- iQBFAgUBMTOsfeEDnX0m9pzZAQEKWgGAi6o1Q50PLxRQRlQCmhNnd8qXX4rS6fZx
- B3u9mxkToNL9cwOYuVLOfUJjuxMwhmAF
- =deNt
-
- In article <9602271131.AA18225@lts.sel.alcatel.de>,
- James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/141 #40763 <kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de> wrote:
- >Expressions of the form `int()' have always been allowed. A (fairly)
- >recent change to the draft standard states that they have the same
- >value as default static initialization (in this case, 0). The earlier
- >rules had the initailization undefined.
-
- Is the following legal?
-
- class Foo {
- int x;
- public:
- Foo()
- : x() // legal?
- {}
- };
-
- and if so is it different than just:
-
- Foo::Foo() {}
-
- --Jam
- ---
- [ To submit articles: try just posting with your news-reader.
- If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
- FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html
- Policy: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html
- Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.
- ]
-