> > Another possibility, if you want to keep the per-member initialisation: > what about using 0 as an initialiser rather than NULL? If I'm remembering > the C rules properly (though things are slightly different in C++), 0 is a > valid initialiser for every scalar type (integer, floating-point, pointer, > enum) -- unlike NULL, which is specifically typed to be a pointer. > > Assigning it to 0, will again cause trouble for C++ folks. But definitely leaving it uninitialized will provide a lot of flexibility and any C/C++ programmer will obviously find out and fix bugs arising out of it. For example, we can ask users to initialize in the init section.
Thanks, Gokul. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "il-antlr-interest" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest Unsubscribe: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address
