David Schwartz wrote: > How do you think the compiler would interpret the following: > > MyString Foo="test"; > > It would _have_ to call a constructor. There is no other way to make a > 'MyString'. So your distinction is a distinction without a difference. That's my point. MyString requires a call to a constructor. An int doesn't. That's the difference. > No you cannnot know that _in_general_. The code 'int > MyString::StringCount=0;' and the code 'MyString Foo="test"' are on an equal > level -- both construct global objects and initialize them to sane states. > So in general, you can't know which will occur first. No, we know that 'int MyString::StringCount=0;' is done first, because it needs no run-time initialisation. Cheers, Ben. -- Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686| Apache Group member Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org/ and Technical Director|Email: benat_private | A.L. Digital Ltd, |Apache-SSL author http://www.apache-ssl.org/ London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache/ WE'RE RECRUITING! http://www.aldigital.co.uk/recruit/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 14:03:29 PDT