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

[Scott Haney]

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 (withdrawn)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 (withdrawn)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