From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Calling constructors
Date: 24 Apr 2003 11:20:24 GMT
Organization: Aachen University of Technology (RWTH)
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <b88h9o$pmi$1@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
References: <422D62CDE87D144687C60CEC7419AD42048A67 AT sgkms01 DOT uk DOT perrymail DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de
X-Trace: nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE 1051183224 26322 137.226.32.75 (24 Apr 2003 11:20:24 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT rwth-aachen DOT de
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Apr 2003 11:20:24 GMT
Originator: broeker@
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Ellingworth, Richard <Richard DOT Ellingworth AT uk DOT perrymail DOT com> wrote:
> Hello. Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but I have a C++ related question.
> Is it OK to call constructors directly? For example, can you do this? :

Why ask here?  You could just try it out, and see what the compiler
tells you.  You'ld have the answer in a lot less time.

Anyway: this is an issue about the C++ programming language, not about
DJGPP, so you had better ask such questions elsewhere.  Over in
comp.lang.c++, to name only the most obvious choice.

> class MyClass {

> public:

> MyClass( void )
> {
> 	MyClass( 0 );
> }

For a case like this, it's not even necessary to do it.  If you search
a little in your C++ textbook, you'll learn about default arguments
values, which you can use to avoid even *having* the no-argument
constructor in this case.  Go figure.
-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.