initialization of array as a member using the initialization list

[aaragon]

Hello everyone,

Is this valid?

template <class A>
struct ClassA {

typedef A value_type;
value_type* data_;

explicit ClassA(size_t n) : data(new value_type[]()) {} // note
the () after []


// other stuff
};


Here A is any type, including primitive types. I run valgrind on this
code and it gives me the "Conditiona l jump or move depends on
uninitialised value(s)" error. So if it is not valid, why is it? Is
there a way to default initialize the array in the initialization
list?

Thank you all,

aa

[Salt_Peter]

Re: initialization of array as a member using the initialization list

On Nov 1, 6:57 pm, aaragon <alejandro.ara. ..@gmail.comwro te:

Hello everyone,
>
Is this valid?
>
template <class A>
struct ClassA {
>
    typedef A value_type;
    value_type* data_;

// if its a pointer, label it as such

value_type* p_data;

>
    explicit ClassA(size_t n) : data(new value_type[]()) {}    //note
the () after []
>

// all elements of an array are default constructed.
// in fact, if a default ctor is not available for
// that template parameter, you lose

explicit ClassA(const std::size_t n)
: p_data(new value_type[n]) { }

~ClassA() { delete [] p_data; }

    // other stuff
>
};
>
Here A is any type, including primitive types. I run valgrind on this
code and it gives me the "Conditiona l jump or move depends on
uninitialised value(s)" error. So if it is not valid, why is it? Is
there a way to default initialize the array in the initialization
list?
>
Thank you all,
>
aa

A much better solution is to use a std::vector<>, where elements are
stored in contiguous memory like an array. Another container that is a
workhoerse is std::deque<>, elements are not contiguous. Advantages
imclude that these containers are dynamic / resizeable, allocate and
deallocate automatically. Blends very nicely with common algorithms
(random access iterator, begin/end). It has a common interface. Very
powerfull and a LOT easier to use. Its elements need not have a
default ctor:

class E { explicit E(double n) { } };

std::vector< E vd(1000, E(99.9));

On the other hand, if i were to reinvent the wheel, I'ld design a
fixed array with a const size_t as a template parameter.

template< class A, const std::size_t Size >
struct Array
{
typedef A value_type;
// ctors
Array() : data() {}
explicit Array(const A& a)
{
for(value_type* pv = &data[0]; pv != &data[Size]; ++pv)
{
*pv = a;
}
}
// and so on ...
private:
value_type data[Size];
};

[James Kanze]

Re: initialization of array as a member using the initialization list

On Nov 2, 3:13 am, Salt_Peter <pj_h...@yahoo. comwrote:

On Nov 1, 6:57 pm, aaragon <alejandro.ara. ..@gmail.comwro te:

template <class A>
struct ClassA {

>

    typedef A value_type;
    value_type* data_;

// if its a pointer, label it as such

      value_type* p_data;

That's very bad advice. It's already labeled as a pointer;
that's what the * means. If being a pointer is an essential
part of its semantics, which you do want to reflect in the name,
then something like dataPointer can be used, but in my
experience, this isn't needed that much.

(The one thing that is sometimes useful is a scope indicator;
something like myData or m_data to indicate that it is a member
variable. In theory, if your names are good, it shouldn't be
necessary either, but in practice, it's sometimes an easy way
out.)

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kan ze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34