«

Is there away to initialize an array's size through constructor
initialization?

Right now I have

///////////////
class foo
{
string bar[20];
public:
foo();
}

////
foo::foo()
{
};


////////////////

could something be done like

///////////////
class foo
{
string bar[];
public:
foo();
}

////
foo::foo(): bar[20]
{
};


////////////////

Any help?

thanks,
crichmon

* crichmon:
>
> could something be done like
>
> ///////////////
> class foo
> {
> string bar[];
> public:
> foo();
> }
>
> ////
> foo::foo(): bar[20]
> {
> };

class Foo
{
private:
std::vector<std::string> bar;
public:
Foo(): bar(20) {}
};

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

crichmon wrote:

> Is there away to initialize an array's size through constructor
> initialization?
>
> Right now I have
>
> ///////////////
> class foo
> {
> string bar[20];
> public:
> foo();
> }
>
> ////
> foo::foo()
> {
> };

class foo
{
string* bar;
public:
foo();
//don't forget copy construction/assignment/destructor
};

foo::foo()
: bar(new string[20])
{
}

> ////////////////
>
> could something be done like
>
> ///////////////
> class foo
> {
> string bar[];
> public:
> foo();
> }
>
> ////
> foo::foo(): bar[20]
> {
> };

No. Why would you want that? Note that a class has a size that is fixed
at compile time, so you couldn't put a non-constant expression between
the brackets anyway. And in the other case, you wouldn't gain anything.

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 08:42:06 GMT, crichmon <> wrote:

> Is there away to initialize an array's size through constructor
> initialization?
>
> Right now I have
>
> ///////////////
> class foo
> {
> string bar[20];
> public:
> foo();
> }
>
> ////
> foo::foo()
> {
> };
>
>
> ////////////////
>
> could something be done like
>
> ///////////////
> class foo
> {
> string bar[];
> public:
> foo();
> }
>
> ////
> foo::foo(): bar[20]
> {
> };
>
>
> ////////////////
>
> Any help?
>
> thanks,
> crichmon
>
>

Use a vector

class foo
{
vector<string> bar;
public:
foo();
}

////
foo::foo(): bar(20)
{
};

It's what vectors are for.

john

* John Harrison:
>
> Use a vector
>
> class foo
> {
> vector<string> bar;
> public:
> foo();
> }

Here should be a semicolon.


> ////
> foo::foo(): bar(20)
> {
> };

Here should not be a semicolon.

I gather my reply to the same posting had not yet reached your
news-server.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

A nontype template parameter can be used.

template <int val=20>
class foo
{
string bar[val];
};

foo<30> test();

Fraser.

"Fraser Ross" <fraserATmembers.v21.co.unitedkingdom> wrote:

> A nontype template parameter can be used.
>
> template <int val=20>
> class foo
> {
> string bar[val];
> };
>
> foo<30> test();

<Nitpick>
Note that 'test' is a declaration of a function that returns a foo<30>.
I don't think you actually wanted that.
</Nitpick>