|
From: | Scott Haney |
Subject: | Re: [pooma-dev] RFA: Reorder Initializers (2 of 3) |
Date: | Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:18:59 -0700 |
On Wednesday, March 28, 2001, at 04:39 PM, Jeffrey Oldham wrote:
The large patch I sent out yesterday was too complicated. Thus, I have split it into five pieces: 1) Add typenames. 2) Reorder constructor initializers. <-- this patch 3) Other changes. 4) Preprocessor changes. (withdrawn) 5) Changes to deprecated directories. (withdrawn) I withdraw the large patch. (I cut the large patch apart by hand so small typos may be present.) Scott Haney indicated he wants to review these changes.
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.
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
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |