Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!mrccrc!dcurtis
From: dcurtis@crc.ac.uk (Dr. David Curtis)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Array of class objects
Message-ID: <372@tin.crc.ac.uk>
Date: 28 Nov 90 09:47:18 GMT
References: <1756@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> <1990Nov15.050358.16043@clear.com> <1650@fornax.UUCP> <MLM.90Nov25233119@hector.cs.brown.edu>
Reply-To: dcurtis@crc.ac.uk (Dr. David Curtis)
Organization: MRC Human Genome Resource Centre
Lines: 32

In article <MLM.90Nov25233119@hector.cs.brown.edu> mlm@cs.brown.edu writes:
>
>About the two constructors:
>	pnt::pnt( int x = 0, int y = 0, int y = 0 ) {};
>	pnt::pnt() {};
>Under AT&T C++ 2.0, these were in fact two different constructors, and
>in order to initialize an array of pnt's it was necessary to include
>the second one.  Under AT&T C++ 2.1, that restriction was lifted, and
>the first constructor will be used to initialize arrays of pnt's, if
>the second constructor is not supplied.  Under either compiler, I
>believe that including both versions of the constructor and then
>defining a variable
>	pnt P;
>will result in a compile-time error on that line, as the compiler will
>be unable to disambiguate that call.
>
>						Moises

Easy to get round this, just take out the first default argument to the
first constructor:

	pnt::pnt( int x, int y = 0, int z = 0 ) 
            { pnt_x=x; pnt_y=y; pnt_z=z; }

	pnt::pnt() { pnt_x=0; pnt_y=0; pnt_z=0; }

Dave Curtis

Academic Department of Psychiatry,    Janet:       dc@UK.AC.UCL.SM.PSYCH
Middlesex Hospital,                   Elsewhere:   dc@PSYCH.SM.UCL.AC.UK
Mortimer Street, London W1N 8AA.      EARN/Bitnet: dc%PSYCH.SM.UCL@UKACRL
Tel 081-380 9475 Fax 081-323 1459     Usenet: ...!mcsun!ukc!mrccrc!D.Curtis