Class field initialisation question.
-
Hi folks, OK, what I'm interested in are the technical pros and cons of data initialisation in a classes. I.e. which is better?
class Test { private int mInt = -1; Test() { // Do nothing } }orclass Test { private int mInt; Test() { mInt = -1; } }The reason I ask is that I usually have several constructors on my classes and I prefer the first method so I can guarantee that whichever constructor I'm entering, all the fields are initialised the same way. But are there technical reasons not to do this? Dr Herbie Remember, half the people out there have below average IQs. -
Hi folks, OK, what I'm interested in are the technical pros and cons of data initialisation in a classes. I.e. which is better?
class Test { private int mInt = -1; Test() { // Do nothing } }orclass Test { private int mInt; Test() { mInt = -1; } }The reason I ask is that I usually have several constructors on my classes and I prefer the first method so I can guarantee that whichever constructor I'm entering, all the fields are initialised the same way. But are there technical reasons not to do this? Dr Herbie Remember, half the people out there have below average IQs.I think that the first method is much better too, because it is possible that you have problems to initialize the variable at a later time. (perhaps in a try-catch chapter -> than you are not able to use the new instanced variable out of this chapter) With the first method a variable is certainly instanced which is easier to handle. So it´s also easier and safer to check if a variable is set to an invalid value than to check if this variable is instanced. So if I´m wrong please rectify me... Norman-Timo
-
Hi folks, OK, what I'm interested in are the technical pros and cons of data initialisation in a classes. I.e. which is better?
class Test { private int mInt = -1; Test() { // Do nothing } }orclass Test { private int mInt; Test() { mInt = -1; } }The reason I ask is that I usually have several constructors on my classes and I prefer the first method so I can guarantee that whichever constructor I'm entering, all the fields are initialised the same way. But are there technical reasons not to do this? Dr Herbie Remember, half the people out there have below average IQs.I don't believe there is any technical reason to prefer the second method (Unless you're a VB programmer;P). As you point out the first method gaurantees the variable will be initialed to a useful value no matter which constructor you use.
-
Hi folks, OK, what I'm interested in are the technical pros and cons of data initialisation in a classes. I.e. which is better?
class Test { private int mInt = -1; Test() { // Do nothing } }orclass Test { private int mInt; Test() { mInt = -1; } }The reason I ask is that I usually have several constructors on my classes and I prefer the first method so I can guarantee that whichever constructor I'm entering, all the fields are initialised the same way. But are there technical reasons not to do this? Dr Herbie Remember, half the people out there have below average IQs.Same thing :) top secret xacc-ide 0.0.1
-
Hi folks, OK, what I'm interested in are the technical pros and cons of data initialisation in a classes. I.e. which is better?
class Test { private int mInt = -1; Test() { // Do nothing } }orclass Test { private int mInt; Test() { mInt = -1; } }The reason I ask is that I usually have several constructors on my classes and I prefer the first method so I can guarantee that whichever constructor I'm entering, all the fields are initialised the same way. But are there technical reasons not to do this? Dr Herbie Remember, half the people out there have below average IQs.I would suggest you read Quiz: Type Constructors [^] by Brad Abrams[^] who is a Lead Program Manager for the CLR. - Nick Parker
My Blog | My Articles -
Hi folks, OK, what I'm interested in are the technical pros and cons of data initialisation in a classes. I.e. which is better?
class Test { private int mInt = -1; Test() { // Do nothing } }orclass Test { private int mInt; Test() { mInt = -1; } }The reason I ask is that I usually have several constructors on my classes and I prefer the first method so I can guarantee that whichever constructor I'm entering, all the fields are initialised the same way. But are there technical reasons not to do this? Dr Herbie Remember, half the people out there have below average IQs.It compiles down to the same thing. If you don't declare a default constructor, one is defined for you anyway and instance fields are initialized in it. The only difference is that instance fields initialized outside the default constructor - when compiled - are initialized before
base.ctor()is called. Any fields you initialize explicitly in your default constructor are initialized after the call tobase.ctor()(compiled into your default constructor automatically). Software Design Engineer Developer Division Sustained Engineering Microsoft [My Articles] -
Hi folks, OK, what I'm interested in are the technical pros and cons of data initialisation in a classes. I.e. which is better?
class Test { private int mInt = -1; Test() { // Do nothing } }orclass Test { private int mInt; Test() { mInt = -1; } }The reason I ask is that I usually have several constructors on my classes and I prefer the first method so I can guarantee that whichever constructor I'm entering, all the fields are initialised the same way. But are there technical reasons not to do this? Dr Herbie Remember, half the people out there have below average IQs.