Re: zero memory

From:

ajk <usenetonly@doh.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:54:31 GMT

Message-ID:

<sqoh139ccrr3liap4dfssctdadoosqgth4@4ax.com>

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:45:16 -0700, Gianni Mariani
<gi3nospam@mariani.ws> wrote:

ajk wrote:

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 05:39:34 -0700, Gianni Mariani
<gi3nospam@mariani.ws> wrote:

...

Note the lack of a memset call and note that the code will work for POD
types as well as non POD types.

ok that's in a way elegant, but a bit difficult for maintenance
programmers to troubleshoot

That's one serious cop-out. Arguing to have mediocre engineers is an
unsupportable argument.

no, its not an unsuportable argument - coding so that its clear is
what its about.

Let's see which one is more maintainable ....
.................
code in common header file....

struct InitObj
{
    template <typename T>
    operator T * ()
    {
        return new T();
    }
};
...............

...............
application code.....
PMYSTRUCT mys = InitObj();
...............

vs - in every instance ...

memset(&overlapped,0,sizeof(overlapped)) + other mumbo jumbo with all
kinds of potential for programmer errors.

mumbo jumbo? lol whatever

I know what I would like my engineers to maintain.

your solution has two drawbacks as it allocates memory on heap:
it requires whoever uses it to know that memory is allocated second
second allocating memory on heap just because you want to initialize
it isn't effective.