Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

Categories

0 votes
329 views
in Technique[技术] by (71.8m points)

c++ - Why can't we initialize class members at their declaration?

I wonder if there is a reason why we can't initialize members at their declaration.

class Foo
{
    int Bar = 42; // this is invalid
};

As an equivalent of using constructor initialization lists.

class Foo
{
    int Bar;
public:
    Foo() : Bar(42) {}
}

My personal understanding is that the above example is much more expressive and intentional. Moreover this is a shorter syntax. And I don't see any possibility of confusion with other language elements.

Is there any official clarification about this?

See Question&Answers more detail:os

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

1 Reply

0 votes
by (71.8m points)

The initialization of non-static members could not be done like this prior to C++11. If you compile with a C++11 compiler, it should happily accept the code you have given.

I imagine that the reason for not allowing it in the first place is because a data member declaration is not a definition. There is no object being introduced. If you have a data member such as int x;, no int object is created until you actually create an object of the type of the class. Therefore, an initializer on this member would be misleading. It is only during construction that a value can be assigned to the member, which is precisely what member initialization lists are for.

There were also some technical issues to iron out before non-static member initialization could be added. Consider the following examples:

struct S {
    int i(x);
    // ...
    static int x;
};

struct T {
    int i(x);
    // ...
    typedef int x;
};

When these structs are being parsed, at the time of parsing the member i, it is ambiguous whether it is a data member declaration (as in S) or a member function declaration (as in T).

With the added functionality, this is not a problem because you cannot initialize a member with this parantheses syntax. You must use a brace-or-equal-initializer such as:

int i = x;
int i{x};

These can only be data members and so we have no problem any more.

See the proposal N2628 for a more thorough look at the issues that had to be considered when proposing non-static member initializers.


与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
OGeek|极客中国-欢迎来到极客的世界,一个免费开放的程序员编程交流平台!开放,进步,分享!让技术改变生活,让极客改变未来! Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Click Here to Ask a Question

...