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

[Scott Haney]

On Wednesday, March 28, 2001, at 05:35 PM, James Crotinger wrote:

>
>
> 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.

I said I didn't have a problem with Jeffrey fiddling with the order. I 
agree that having to fiddle with the order is a problem. Happily, we 
have some GCC developers with write permissions to the CVS 
repository.. :-)

>
> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1112 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sourcerytools.com/pipermail/pooma-dev/attachments/20010328/43a7752e/attachment.bin>