🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DCwops.HEo@world.std.com>, Tom Breton <tob@world.std.com> wrote:
>vandevod@ro.cs.rpi.edu (David Vandevoorde) writes:
>> Except for the initializer-list, I don't see how factoring out the
>> common construction adds significant overhead:
>
>"Factoring out" is usually proposed as a work-around, but it's not
>really a solution. 0) It can't initialize reference or const members. 1)
>Conceptually, it's just wrong. A member function should do stuff after
>construction, not before construction. Construction should come from
>ctors.

Actually, ctors are "wrong" themselves. Typcially,
you want to compute several values and stuff them into members.
Just as you can initialise the stack frame of a function
in stages with loops and so-on between initialisations, so too
one would like to do this for objects.

You can do so -- but only by using assignments.

Hm. I wonder how many compilers can optimise
default initialisation followed by assignment to copy construction?
This should be possible for Standard Library classes like "string"
where the semantics are known.

--
JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
Maxtal Pty Ltd,
81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA	    Phone: 61-2-566-2189
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]