On 23/05/2013 04:38 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>> What do you mean by "field"? Your question is not clear enough.
>
>> I mean something like
>
>>     class Foobar
>>     {
>>       private:
>>         boost::shared_ptr<std::vector<Foo>>  foo;
>>       public:
>>         Foobar()
>>     }
>
> Why didn't you say so in the first place?
>
> If you want to initialize that member function in the constructor, use
> the constructor's initializer list or just assign to it in the contructor's
> body. In the first case:
>
>      Foobar::Foobar(): foo(new std::vector<Foo>)
>      {}
>
> Or if you prefer,
>
>      Foobar::Foobar()
>      {
>          foo = new std::vector<Foo>;
>      }

I had hoped it would "just work" the same way it does if it wasn't a 
pointer. But it appears that no, you have to make it actually point to 
something. (Which is reasonable.) The constructor seems like the most 
sensible place to do that.

> Btw, C++98 does not support>>  for closing a double template. You have
> to add a space in between.

Yeah, I already discovered that. ;-)

> I'm wondering why you are using a std::vector, though. I thought that what
> you wanted was something like this:
>
> //----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> class Foobar
> {
>      struct Impl;
>      boost::shared_ptr<Impl>  impl;
>
>   public:
>      Foobar();
> };
> //----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In which case the implementation would be like:
>
> //----------------------------------------------------------------
> struct Foobar::Impl
> {
>      std::vector<Foo>  array;
> }
>
> Foobar::Foobar(): impl(new Impl)
> {}
> //----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Much simpler and cleaner that way.

Ooo, interesting... Yeah, that could work.

>>> (And btw, don't start names with an underscore. Those are reserved for
>>> the compiler.)
>
>> Hoooookay... In that case, there's about 200 lines in the existing
>> codebase that need to be changed. o_O
>
> I have never quite understood why so many programmers seem to be obsessed
> with putting underscores at the beginning of names.

Apparently ReSharper insists that every C# private field begins with an 
underscore. I guess when the guys started writing C++, they just copied 
that naming convention. After all, it's only a name, right? You can name 
your stuff anything you li- oh, OK, maybe not...

Post a reply to this message