Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!rna!kc
From: kc@rna.UUCP (Kaare Christian)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: aggregate initializations
Keywords: aggregates, initialization
Message-ID: <974@rna.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jan 90 14:41:03 GMT
Organization: Rockefeller University - Neurobiology
Lines: 22

By chance, I've just come across another lawyerly question. Naturally
I've consulted the usual suspects to come up with a clear understanding
of what's what, but haven't had much luck. The topic, C++ aggregate
initializations. From various sources (Stroustrup, Lippman, The Ugly
Reddish Book) it is obvious that C++ initializations are much more
flexible that C's. This capability, while tremendously useful, hasn't
garnered much attention. It is omitted from most lists of "how C++ fixes
up C." Anyway, it is obvious that the following are OK inits:
	int f(int);	// URB pg 50
	int a = 2;
	int b = f(a);
The simple question is: does this apply to aggregates? Are the following
legal?
	int c[] = { f(0), f(1), f(2) };
	struct D { int x; } d = { f(a) };
I can't find a mention of any restriction that says aggregate
initializers must be consts, but this sort of stuff just doesn't
compile with ZTC 2.0.

Kaare Christian
kc@rna.rockefeller.edu
...cmcl2!rna!kc