Miranda functions and Initialization

[JKop]

Is this them all?:
class Dummy
{
public:

Dummy() {}

Dummy(const Dummy& original) { }

Dummy& operator=(const Dummy& lhs) {}

const Dummy * operator&() const { return this; }

Dummy * operator&() { return this; }

~Dummy() {}

};
Also could anyone please inform me of circumstances in which these are
edited and in which they disappear? For example I'm already aware of the
following:

1) Dummy() disappears if you supply another one that takes arguments, eg.
Dummy(int).

2) operator= and the copy constructor will change for every extra member
variable that's added to the class.
--

Now, take the following:

int main()
{
int j;
}
I'm fully aware that j contains no particular value, it hasn't been
initialized.

Now take the following:

int main()
{
int j = 45;
}

I'm fully aware that that's equal to:

int j = int(45);

But, where you have user-defined types, what exactly goes on?

For instance:

SomeClass k = 78.222;
Does that become:

SomeClass k = SomeClass(78.22 2);

And then is the SomeClass(const SomeClass&) copy constructor called? Or...
does the compiler simply look for a different copy constructor, eg.
SomeClass(const double&)? Or is that even valid?

Anyway here's what I'm getting at: I know int() is equal to zero, ie. if you
specify brackets then it gets intialized to zero. Now ofcourse you have the
problem of:

int main()
{
int j();
}

The compiler doesn't know if it's an object definition or a function
declaration (...if only "extern" was compulsory). As such, it assumes a
function declaration.

Is the only way to get around this to write:

int j(0);

?

Anyway here comes my question:

class Chocolate
{
public:

int a;

double b;

};
int main()
{
Chocolate choco;
}
Do "a" and "b" get initialized to zero? And if so, what does it? Is it the
miranda default constructor? What about in the following code:

class Chocolate
{
public:

int a;

double b;

Chocolate() {}

};
int main()
{
Chocolate choco;
}
Do "a" and "b" get initialized to zero in the above?
-JKop

[Karl Heinz Buchegger]

JKop wrote:

[snip] There's just one thing that I want to figure out:

SomeClass object = SomeClass();

There has to be some sort of way of turning the following:

SomeClass object();

into an object definition. I've tried:

class SomeClass object();
struct SomeClass object();

But still they're a function declaration. That doesn't make sense to me.
That's because there are circumstances (don't remember which exactly) where
the compiler cannot differentaiate between a function declaration and an
object definition.
That's why there is the rule: If it lools like a function declaration, it
is a function declaration.

There is nothing you can do about it.
class SomeClass object();

object is a function which returns a class SomeClass object.
That's the way it is.

--
Karl Heinz Buchegger
kb******@gascad .at

[JKop]

Karl Heinz Buchegger posted:

JKop wrote:

[snip]

There's just one thing that I want to figure out:

SomeClass object = SomeClass();

There has to be some sort of way of turning the following:
SomeClass object();

into an object definition. I've tried:

class SomeClass object();
struct SomeClass object();

But still they're a function declaration. That doesn't make sense to me.

That's because there are circumstances (don't remember

which exactly) where the compiler cannot differentaiate between a function declaration and an object definition.
That's why there is the rule: If it lools like a function declaration, it is a function declaration.

There is nothing you can do about it.

class SomeClass object();
object is a function which returns a class SomeClass

object. That's the way it is.

I asked this question on comp.std.c++, but it seems the
asshole, opps I mean the moderator, didn't feel it was fit
for posting.
-JKop