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

[Scott Haney]

On Wednesday, March 28, 2001, at 05:31 PM, Jeffrey Oldham wrote:

> 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.

Are there different warning levels in GCC? This seems like it falls in 
the "Chatty and more than a little annoying category." :-) This warning 
should not, it seems to me, be printed out by default. If there's no way 
to change this, we should make these changes. They're good style anyway.

>
> 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.

This strikes me as another annoying warning from GCC. Same comment as 
above.

Scott
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1400 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sourcerytools.com/pipermail/pooma-dev/attachments/20010328/9c39e08e/attachment.bin>