Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!apple!netcom!sjsumcs!horstman
From: horstman@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Cay Horstmann)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Class member initialization proposal
Message-ID: <1990Apr13.064548.1133@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu>
Date: 13 Apr 90 06:45:48 GMT
References: <14560@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Reply-To: horstman@sjsumcs.SJSU.EDU (Cay Horstmann)
Organization: San Jose State University
Lines: 35

In article <14560@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> ronen@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Ronen Barzel) writes:
>WHAT DO I WANT?
>
>An extra capability in C++: the ability to specify initializations
>for class members within the class definition, as part of the member
>declaration.  Thus, for example, I would like the following to be legal:
>
>
>    OLD					NEW
>    ----------------------		------------------------------
>    class A {				class A {
>	char *ptr;			    char *ptr = 0;
>	const int n;			    const int n = 3;
...
>	A();				    A();
>	A(int);				    A(int);
>    };					};
...

I don't think this is so great. The only benefit would be to give the
compiler a hint to factor out code common to all constructors. But you
could do that manually with a member function. 

HOWEVER, for static const this would indeed be very desirable:

	class Table
	{	static const int SIZE = 20;
		Whatnot* t[ SIZE ];
	// ...
	};

Whatever you do, please do not post back that I could use 
a local enum { SIZE = 20 }. 

Cay