Re: Default constructor

From: Pasha Murat (murat@cdfsga.fnal.gov)
Date: Thu Aug 13 1998 - 23:33:28 MEST


Hello,
	you may also want to explain what is the problem with having the 
default constructor setting fA to zero... Otherwise it is not quite clear
what you're trying to fight
						- regards, pasha
Alexander Yuryevich Zvyagin writes:
 > Hi, ROOTers!
 > 
 > I have one question about the role of default constructor for ROOT 
 > objects.
 > 
 > In the class TMyClass I plan to use only one constructor:
 > 
 > class TMyClass : public TObject
 > {
 >   public:
 >     TMyClass(Int_t a);
 >     void Work(void);
 >   private:
 >     Int_t fA;
 >     ClassDef(TMyClass,1)
 > };
 > 
 > TMyClass::TMyClass(Int_t a)
 > {
 >   // fA initialising ....
 >   ....
 > }
 > 
 > The function TMyClass::Work(void) will crash if fA is out of some legal
 > range. It seems that everything is fine: TMyClass::TMyClass(Int_t) sets
 > fA and TMyClass::Work(void) will work without problem. But in ROOT we must
 > have default constructor too. Will it be save to have empty default
 > constructor TMyClass::TMyClass(void){} ? 
 > 
 > P.S. I know that it is possible to have the prototype TMyClass(Int_t a=0)
 >      but it may help only for simple cases.
 > 
 > Thanks in advance,
 > Alexander Zvyagin.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 04 2000 - 00:34:36 MET