🚀 go-pugleaf

h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no (Hallvard B Furuseth) writes:

>MTM4@rsvl.unisys.com (Mike McCormick) writes:
>
>>>This is an example where it would be usefull to be able to initialize
>>>not only static but also nonstatic datamembers inside the class defn.
>>>
>>>  class Thing {
>>>  private:
>>>        int readOnly;
>>>  public:
>>>        const int* const pReadOnly =&readOnly; // ILLEGAL
>>>  };
>> 
>> Just supposing this *were* legal syntax, how is it an improvement over the 
>> constructor initializer syntax?
>
>If it were legal, pReadOnly need not take any space in the class becuase
>the compiler would always know where it pointed. 

No, that's not true.  The compiler would still have to reserve space
in the class for `pReadOnly', because you can take its address.

>Just like `const int &const pReadOnly = &readOnly;' might do if legal.
	      (You mean `... rReadOnly = readOnly;'.)

A compiler could do this optimization for references, like the above,
since you can't take the address of a reference.
But the optimization would not be valid for pointers.

-- 
Fergus Henderson             |  "Australia is the richest country in the world,
fjh@cs.mu.oz.au              |   according to a new system of measuring wealth
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh  |   announced by the World Bank yesterday."
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 |  - Melbourne newspaper "The Age", 18 Sept 1995.


---
[ 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. ]