Thread: Bool initialization in class

Originally Posted by FlyingIsFun1217

But isn't it being initialized when it goes to compile the private class variables? Or does that only serve as a 'pointer' for future reference (in the code), and it's actually initialized when first used in other functions?

FlyingIsFun1217

There is little wrong with the syntax you use, except that it is not valid C++. Perhaps the designers of the language did not want there to be ambiguity if an object was initialized both as you suggest and in the initializer list of a constructor. Or perhaps they simply did not think of that syntax.

But an object is initialized when you call it's constructor. In this way different objects can be initialized differently, depending on constructor arguments, and each instance has it's own copy of the variables.

Originally Posted by FlyingIsFun1217

Interesting... so it would be fine had it been designed that way/the compiler was made to support that? Seems like one of those things that should have been done.

FlyingIsFun1217

It is done that way in Java. Richie T demonstrates the equivalent C++ syntax.

The problem with the Java syntax is that it does not allow initialization to depend on constructor arguments.

Originally Posted by King Mir

It is done that way in Java. Richie T demonstrates the equivalent C++ syntax.

The problem with the Java syntax is that it does not allow initialization to depend on constructor arguments.

That's the kicker. E.g. for a copy-constructor you would most likely not want an int default initialised to zero (it oyu had written that) before being given the value in the item it is being constructed from.