9e9409ee   
   From: brangdon@cix.compulink.co.uk   
      
   roberts.noah@gmail.com (nroberts) wrote (abridged):   
   > Now, I am one to initialize everything in the constructor (when I   
   > don't forget and miss something) anyway so I don't have to think   
   > about it.   
      
   I don't see the policy as being against that. I thought this was about whether   
   members are initialised in the constructor's initialiser list, or in the   
   constructor's body. Either way members should be initialised before the   
   constructor   
   terminates.   
      
      
   > What rather upsets me about this policy, and I do believe it's being   
   > made policy for the reason that Mr. Harris suggests, is that knowing   
   > whether something has a trivial constructor is not as obvious as   
   > asking, "Is it an int?"   
      
   I think the policy is over-stated as written. I suspect the intent is more   
   like,   
   "Use constructor initialiser lists if there is a good reason to, otherwise   
   don't   
   worry about it." One of the problems with writing a coding policy is they   
   bring out   
   the lawyer in us. One feels one has to find a form of words that expresses   
   exactly   
   what a "good reason" is. Mentioning a non-trivial constructor was a valiant   
   attempt.   
      
   (Reading a coding policy can also bring out the lawyer in us.)   
      
   -- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK.   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)