Re: Passing Two-Dimensional Array as a Function Parameter

From:

Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

Sun, 3 Oct 2010 11:49:15 -0400

Message-ID:

<2010100311491525526-pete@versatilecodingcom>

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.

--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)