Explicit initialization of class members

Code:

struct some_struct{
    int a;
};
some_struct n = {};

n.a will be 0;

I know this braces form of initialization is inherited from C and is supported for compatibility with C programs, but this only compiles with C++, not with the C compiler. I'm using Visual C++ 2005.

In C this type of initialization

Code:

some_struct n = {0};

is correct and will zero-initialize all members of a structure.

Is the empty pair of braces form of initialization standard? Because I've never seen it before, but seem to be used in winapi.

Yes, I'm pretty sure it is standard. The reason it doesn't compile in C is probably because structs have their separate namespace there. So you need to write

Code:

struct some_struct n = {};

No, it won't compile in C, at least not in Visual C++ 2005.

In C you can write

Code:

typedef struct {
    int a;
}some_struct;

to be able to use

Code:

some_struct n;

but if I write

Code:

some_struct n = {0};

it compiles.

Originally Posted by zephon

No, it won't compile in C, at least not in Visual C++ 2005.

That is a very contradictory observation if you think about it

In any event, the construct is valid in both C and C++. Although I tend to see it discouraged in practice (disallowed in some style guides, compilers often warn about such a construct at higher warning settings, etc).

Originally Posted by grumpy

That is a very contradictory observation if you think about it

Yes that's because the same IDE (Visual C++ 2005 known also as Visual C++ 8.0) alows to compile your code as C or as C++. Also the compiler is invoked indirectly using a command-line interface that is CL.EXE, and I don't know the compiler names that this tool calls.

Originally Posted by grumpy

In any event, the construct is valid in both C and C++. Although I tend to see it discouraged in practice (disallowed in some style guides, compilers often warn about such a construct at higher warning settings, etc).

This is not valid in C.

The standard (C99 - 6.7.8/12 - Initialization) says this:

If there are fewer initializers in a brace-enclosed list than there are elements or members of an aggregate, or fewer characters in a string literal used to initialize an array of known size than there are elements in the array, the remainder of the aggregate shall be initialized implicitly the same as objects that have static storage duration.

In C the grammar requires that there be at least one 'assignment-expression' inside the braces. An 'assignment-expression' can be many things from a constant or identifier up through much more complex expressions. However, an empty string doesn't qualify as an 'assignment-expression', so there has to be something between the braces.

In C++, the grammar specifically allows the empty braces initializer.

Source

Unfortunately, your source is incorrect.

Firstly (minor point - they made a typo) the words it attributes as C99 - 6.7.8/12 is actually Section 6.7.8 para 21.

Second, there is no statement in the C standard that the gramma requires at least one expression inside the braces.

Well, this is what the C99 final public draft says (don't have an official version):

Code:

6.7.8 Initialization Syntax

initializer:
    assignment-expression
    { initializer-list }
    { initializer-list , }

initializer-list:
    designation[opt] initializer
    initializer-list , designation[opt] initializer

So initializer-list consists of at least a single initializer, and initializer in its list form needs an initializer-list between the braces. So yeah, the grammar requires at least one initializer.

To contrast, here's the equivalent section of the latest C++0x draft (I do have a C++03 official standard somewhere, but can't find it right now):

Code:

8.5 Initializers [dcl.init]
[...]
initializer:
    brace-or-equal-initializer
    ( expression-list )

brace-or-equal-initializer:
    = initializer-clause
    braced-init-list

initializer-clause:
    assignment-expression
    braced-init-list

initializer-list:
    initializer-clause ...opt
    initializer-list , initializer-clause ...opt

braced-init-list:
    { initializer-list ,opt }
    { }

The empty braces are an explicit addition to the grammar.