Re: Passing Two-Dimensional Array as a Function Parameter
On 2010-10-03 11:49:15 -0400, Pete Becker said:
On 2010-10-03 10:09:41 -0400, Luc Danton said:
On 03/10/2010 15:42, Pete Becker wrote:
On 2010-10-03 03:31:50 -0400, Juha Nieminen said:
Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote:
int valsAcross [5] = {0,0,0,0,0};
Or, if you don't like counting all those zeros,
int valsAcross[5] = { 0 };
I think this will work too:
int valsAcross[5] = { };
Maybe. But mine is much clearer. <g>
Do you find:
template<typename T>
T make()
{
return T();
}
unclear ?
No.
What is the result of make<int>() ?
What about:
template<typename T>
T*
make()
{
return new T[10]();
}
?
What is make<int>()[0] ?
I'm not at all clear what your point is. Yes, contructors are
meaningful, and some people like to wrap them in template functions.
To me
int valsAcross[5] = {};
is just as clear as
int valsAcross[5] = { 0 };
Good for you.
Then again I've seen presentations/read things about C++0x and
value-initialization.
Once C++0x becomes widely adopted (the standard is still a year or more
away from finalization) things may change. Until then, code that uses
C++0x language features is certainly not portable, and probably
incomprehensible to many people.
However, please note that aggregate initialization of arrays is not a
new C++0x feature. It's been around since the early days of C. And
while empty braces are allowed as an aggregate initializer, I've always
found putting at least one value in the initializer to be clearer.
--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)