|
From: | Scott Haney |
Subject: | Re: [pooma-dev] RFA: Reorder Initializers (2 of 3) |
Date: | Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:41:37 -0700 |
Good question. Since g++ was producing warnings, I assumed that it
was warning the C++ standard was violated, but C++ standard \S 12.6.2
explicitly permits any order of initializers although they are called
in the order of class declaration, not initializer order. However,
Stroustrup, \S 10.4.6, writes, "It is best to specify the initializers
in the member declaration order." I guess this is why g++ wants to
produce warning messages.
I added base class initializers when g++ warned that a copy
constructor did not initialize its base class. For example,
/nfs/oz/home/oldham/pooma/r2/src/NewField/Updater/UpdaterList.h:70: warning: base
class `class RefCounted' should be explicitly initialized in the copy
constructor
Thus, please
accept: if you want g++ users to not have to deal with warning messages
reject: otherwise.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |