Should I explicitly zero initialize auto_ptr?
Some of my colleagues p开发者_如何学JAVArefer to explicitly initialize std::auto_ptr
to 0
in constructor initialization list, but it will be initialized to 0
in it's constructor without any explicit initialization. So is there any reason to do it?
#include <memory>
class A
{
A() : SomePtr(0)
{
}
private:
std::auto_ptr<SomeType> SomePtr;
};
No, the default constructor of std::auto_ptr
does exactly that, so doing it explicitly is not necessary. In any case, it's a matter of style and you should be consistent. For instance, would you explicitly call the default constructor of a member vector in the constructor initialization list?
As a side note, std::auto_ptr
is deprecated in the upcoming standard
Psychology.
For built-in types, you probably already know they are uninitialized unless you do so explicitly. For classes, this is not the case.
A strive to consistency results in explicit initialization everywhere. This allows you to forget if A::SomePtr
is a built-in or a class type. Pretty useless, imho, since the amount of built-in types is quite limited.
One reason maybe clarity, but that should be the only one. I myself prefer not to write unneccessary intialization, especially if that completely spares me from writing a default constructor for the surrounding class and just let the compiler do its job. Whereas it's merely a matter of style, I think too much over-paranoia does even harm the clarity of the code.
精彩评论