From: brangdon@cix.compulink.co.uk   
      
   { Reformatted.  Please limit your lines to 70 characters -mod }   
      
   dave@boostpro.com (Dave Abrahams) wrote (abridged):   
   > > Both your (counter-)examples are *not* convincing. They   
   > > significantly change what the constructor does. (In that a   
   > > user could provide another r / in that the hypot() function   
   > > is leaked into the interface.)   
   >   
   > I agree that this is "jumping through hoops", but there is a   
   > standard way to deal with that problem: use delegating constructors:   
      
   True. I expect the coding policy predates C++11. C++11 adds some   
   features that makes initialiser lists easier to use.   
      
      
   > in C++03, you do the same thing by adding a base class just for   
   > construction purposes:   
      
   True. I'm not convinced the benefits of initialiser lists are worth   
   the price of adding another class and another level to the inheritance   
   hierarchy. Both of these techniques feel to me like they are   
   contorting code to solve something which isn't really a problem. They   
   seem more purist than pragmatic.   
      
   It reminds me of the debate over whether functions can have multiple   
   exit points.  They can always be avoided, but for me the cost of doing   
   so isn't always worth it.  These are areas where different programmers   
   can have different aesthetic tastes.  It's not decided by objective   
   right and wrong, but by how we value different kinds of complexity.   
      
   -- 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)