Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!dog.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck
From: jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Why no renew
Message-ID: <12194@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 21 Mar 91 01:47:27 GMT
References: <281@nazgul.UUCP> <1991Mar14.042611.14921@mathcs.sjsu.edu> <184@heurikon.heurikon.com> <1991Mar16.172814.6525@mathcs.sjsu.edu>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Lines: 25

In article <1991Mar16.172814.6525@mathcs.sjsu.edu>, horstman@mathcs.sjsu.edu (Cay Horstmann) writes:
|> In article <184@heurikon.heurikon.com> daves@ex.heurikon.com (Dave Scidmore) writes:
|> >	1) Zeroing is infrequently needed and seldom even helpful.
|> 
|> Huh? When you say X** a = new X*[100], isn't it most likely that you want
|> all those X*'s to be null pointers?

What about when you say

void func() {
	X* arrayOfPointers[100];
	...
}

Wouldn't you want the pointers to be initialized in this case as
well?  What you're really proposing sounds like specifying a
default constructor for non-class types (i.e. pointers get 0,
doubles get 0.0, chars get '\0', etc).  This has some advantages,
but I would hope there'd be a way of turning it off for cases where
it's wasteful.


--
Joe Buck
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu	 {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck