please, use bottom posting. On 23 March 2015 at 18:47, Marcos Cardinot <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Lubomir, > > It's not about a dangerous lack of initialization - it's more about code > consistence. So, the question should be why not initialize all members as we > should do?
the answer is in the requests to change the patches. because it looks horrible and it's prone to order warnings for more members. i would do it if there is a compiler warning (e.g. requirement - const, references etc..) or a potentially dangerous action with an uninitialized member. i agree that it's it's safer, the language recommends it and there is a performance boost in for some non-POD members, but in the end it's a matter of a preference. > > In addition, most of these are not following the new coding style (which we > discussed in another thread), so if you want to apply them, I could send new > patches fixing it (and join all changes in a single patch if you like)... > if the project maintainer and others are OK with your patches, i'm certainly OK as well. lubomir -- _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
