CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++c++11initializationstructure
user2513149
user2513149

Reputation: 880

Aggregated structure constructor

I have the following code:

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

struct Point {
    double x,y;
    Point(double x=0, double y=0): x(x), y(y) {}
};

struct Triangle {
    Point A,B,C;
    Triangle(Point A=Point(), Point B=Point(), Point C=Point()): A(A), B(B), C(C) {}
    void output()
    {
        cout<<"A: "<<A.x<<";"<<A.y<<endl;
        cout<<"B: "<<B.x<<";"<<B.y<<endl;
        cout<<"C: "<<C.x<<";"<<C.y<<endl;
    }
};

int main() {
    Triangle t;
    t.output();
    return 0;
}

Everything works fine. My question is about the Triangle constructor with default parameters. Is this a correct way to initialize the members by calling the Point constructor like this Point A=Point() (in terms of efficiency and clean code)?

Upvotes: 0

Views: 52

Answers (2)

R Sahu
R Sahu

Reputation: 206567

Is this a correct way to initialize the members by calling the Point constructor like this Point A=Point() (in terms of efficiency and clean code)?

It is correct.

You can't talk about efficiency with just one method. You need to present a second method and then compare them for efficiency.

As far as cleanliness is concerned, I think it is better to use function argument names that are different than member variables.

The compiler will create correct code when you use

Triangle(Point A=Point(), Point B=Point(), Point C=Point()): A(A), B(B), C(C) {}

but it is more human readable to use

Triangle(Point inA = Point(), Point inB = Point(), Point inC = Point()): A(inA), B(inB), C(inC) {}

Upvotes: 2

duong_dajgja
duong_dajgja

Reputation: 4276

In terms of code cleanliness I would prefer to present two constructors instead:

Triangle(Point inA, Point inB, Point inC): A(inA), B(inB), C(inC) {}
Triangle() : Triangle(Point(), Point(), Point()) {}

Upvotes: 2

Related Questions