Does this conform to the standard?
class Foo {
Bar m_bar;
Bar * m_woo;
public:
Foo() : m_bar(42, 123), m_woo(&m_bar) { }
};
views:
60answers:
1
+3
A:
It is correct. What is not correct is dereferencing that pointer before that particular subobject has been fully initialized.
David Rodríguez - dribeas
2010-05-04 17:17:09
Dennis Zickefoose
2010-05-04 17:25:47
Right @Dennis, but even if the order was the opposite, with the given example it would still be correct, as you can initialize a pointer or reference to the yet uninitialized member. The problem would be if within the initialization list `m_woo` was dereferenced before `m_bar` was initialized.
David Rodríguez - dribeas
2010-05-04 17:48:24
No, I understand. I was clarifying in case he does need to dereference `m_woo` for some other member. My intuition says the initialization takes place in the order given by the initializer list, and that intuition is wrong.
Dennis Zickefoose
2010-05-04 18:16:06
@Dennis: Nota bene: GCC warns if the initialiser list has a different order from the declarations.
Jon Purdy
2010-10-30 21:25:34