Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!lijewski
From: lijewski@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Mike Lijewski)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Nit of the day.
Message-ID: <1990Dec16.200441.581@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>
Date: 16 Dec 90 20:04:41 GMT
References: <3000@lupine.NCD.COM>
Organization: Cornell National Supercomputer Facility
Lines: 36

In article <3000@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@lupine.ncd.com (Ron Guilmette) writes:
>I'm at it again.  Picking nits as usual.
>
>Given:
>
>	struct S {
>		int i;
>	};
>
>	void S (void);
>
>	void foobar ()
>	{
>		S ();
>	}
>
>Did I call the explicitly declared function `S' or did I call the
>implicitly compiler-created constructor for `struct S'?

Good question.  On page 27 of E&S is an example very similar to yours.
The answer in that case is the function `S' would be called.  If we
then turn to page 167  there is an example of a class X with an explicit
constructor w/ prototype X(int);.  If we also have a function void X(int);
the statement X(1); becomes ambiguous.  Seems to me we need a much better
explanation of when an implicitely-defined default constructor is
generated and, a bit more explicitely, can I call such a constructor
in a program.  I would also like to know why a default
constructor is generated for EVERY class which has no explicitely-
declared constructors (page 264 E&S).  Seems to me this contradicts the
example on page 27.

-- 
Mike Lijewski  (H)607/272-0238 (W)607/254-8686
Cornell National Supercomputer Facility
ARPA: lijewski@theory.tn.cornell.edu  BITNET: mjlx@cornellf.bitnet
SMAIL:  25 Renwick Heights Road, Ithaca, NY  14850