[pooma-dev] RFA: Reorder Initializers (2 of 3)

[James Crotinger]

I don't have a problem with reordering the ctor initializers to match 
the ordering in the class. This strikes me as good style, but I am a 
little concerned if GCC requires this. I didn't think the standard did.

I do have a problem with it. If I make a change in the ordering in the class
I have to remember to reorder the initializers in all of the constructors.
That can be a major pain in the ass. 

Like Jim, I do have a problem with adding base default base class 
initializers. I thought the compiler was supposed to do this implicitly. 
Is this a stylistic change or a GCC-required change or is this required 
by the standard?

Scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sourcerytools.com/pipermail/pooma-dev/attachments/20010328/6bad6a4f/attachment.html>