On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 7:00 AM Alex Brachet-Mialot via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I just wanted to float this idea that I have had for a while.
>
> I find many constructors often follow this format Type(a_t a, b_t b) :
> a(a), b(b) {}. This can get tedious quickly and look very ugly. Such
> types can sometimes be aggregates which solves this problem, but not
> always, aggregates have prerequisites that very few types can
> realistically follow.
>
> I was thinking that `= default` could be used in this circumstance.
>
>

> class C {
> int a;
> int b;
>
> public:
> C(int b, int a) = default; // Equivalent to : a(a), b(b) {}
> C(int a, int c) = default; // Doesn't know what to do with c, error
> };
>
>

> In the first case nothing is ambiguous to the compiler, the order of
> arguments is not relevant only their names.
>
>
All other many issues aside, the real killer of all clever ways of doing
member init are base classes.


> I think this would be pretty useful because we've all had constructors
> become unwieldily long which follow this pattern, especially when
> variable names are more descriptive than a or b.
>
> To my knowledge there is no precedent for a keyword or any language
> feature which depends on variable names, but I think this is a useful
> change and also fairly trivial change for compilers. I would be happy
> to go and implement this in clang if people are interested in the
> proposal and would like to see an implementation.
>
> Let me know if you have thoughts.
>
> Best,
> Alex
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>