Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #83883

Re: Uniform initialization ambiguity

Show all headers | View raw

Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote:
> The initializer_list was IMHO worst thing of C++11 by large margin.

You sure? I'd say that the uniform initialization causes more problems than
initializer lists.

Initializer lists are cool because you can initialize objects in the same
way as you would a C style array, using a simple syntax.

I see less use for uniform initialization, especially since its syntax
gets messed up with initializer list syntax (even though semantically
they are quite different things!) Sure, sometimes it saves you a bit
of writing, but is it really worth it?

Uniform initialization might be better if it used a syntax that's
different from initializer lists and thus avoided ambiguity with them.

(OTOH, I guess initializer lists *are* part of the concept of "uniform
initialization", and that's the reason why both use the same syntax...)

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Uniform initialization ambiguity Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-29 07:56 +0000
  Re: Uniform initialization ambiguity Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-04-29 06:29 -0700
    Re: Uniform initialization ambiguity "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 19:30 +0200
    Re: Uniform initialization ambiguity Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-29 19:54 +0000
  Re: Uniform initialization ambiguity Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-29 08:42 -0700
    Re: Uniform initialization ambiguity Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-29 08:48 -0700

csiph-web