Mini-proposal of class name omission in constructor?

[Andrew Tomazos]

Each constructor declaration within a class definition of C requires the repetition of the (injected) class name C.  I suspect this is redundant.  Couldn't we allow the C to be taken as implied, and permit it to be omitted?  Likewise for destructor?

// TODAY

class C {

    C();

    C(int);

    ~C();

};

// PROPOSED

class C {

    ();

    (int);

    ~();

};

The motivation is simply to get rid of some DRY violations.

[Bo Persson]

That's not a DRY violation. C(int); means that you didn't intend to
write f(int);, so it is not really redundant.


Bo Persson

[Andrew Tomazos]

Why can't (int); also mean that you didn't intend to write f(int); ?

 

[Domen Vrankar]

It could but there is also the issue of harder spotting it/searching for constructors for those of us that use text editors/diff tools instead of full blown IDEs.

Regards,

Domen

[Magnus Fromreide]

One advantage(?) of this proposal is that it allows constructors for anonymous
classes.

class {
() : member() { /* something */ }
~() { /* something* / }
private:
Foo member;
} variable;

/MF

> Regards,
> Domen
>
> >
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposal...@isocpp.org.
> To post to this group, send email to std-pr...@isocpp.org.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAKgx6BKAipbuQo4nEiTJDLspDx3tBn%2B15pmOoFE_gi4t%2BZakyw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Domen Vrankar]

I personaly don't see that as such an advantage that would be a compelling reason to change the core language.

Lambda functions are already a terse syntax for when you don't require a destructor.

And in combination with p0052 scope guards you also get the destructor part - and such a templated class can allready be writen now in ~10 lines of code, put inside a util header and then used everywhere you like.

Regards,

Domen

[Jake Arkinstall]

I'm okay with the idea of a generic constructor (though I'm far from strongly opinioned either way) . I don't like the idea of leaving it blank though. Python's __init__ and PHP's __construct are clear, and that's an approach I'd rather. Internally, of course, it would just be relabelled with the class name.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposal...@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-pr...@isocpp.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAKgx6BKhpoXXgn6Np1UDb-w_Z8V%2B%2B8Dn7LE-Q4Gofte8pa4Jwg%40mail.gmail.com.

[kylekn...@gmail.com]

Yes, there are many different ways languages handle this (I actually like D's "this(int)" construct).  I agree with Andrew and Jake that something would be desirable that makes the specification of special functions simpler, but "removing" the typename is prone to confusion.  I also suspect that with metaclasses coming down the road, this problem will become less of an issue to deal with.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-pr...@isocpp.org.