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

[Scott Haney]

 On Wednesday, March 28, 2001, at 05:35 PM, James Crotinger wrote:

> 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.
>
> I do have a problem with it. If I make a change in the ordering in the class I have to remember to reorder the initializers in all of the constructors. That can be a major pain in the ass.

I said I didn't have a problem with Jeffrey fiddling with the order. I agree that having to fiddle with the order is a problem. Happily, we have some GCC developers with write permissions to the CVS repository.. :-)

> 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