23 Dec
2008
23 Dec
'08
7:47 a.m.
But is it more correct to do this initialization than applying data_type's default initialization?
I do not feel the def. cnstr is in order here. Because what we say in the code is -- we do not need an initialized instance (with the def. or any other cnstr) but a place-holder only that we'll initialize ourselves via op>>.
Just to be clear this does or doesn't seem like a reasonable use case to you?
IMHO it is certainly a reasonable use-case. That is, in fact, why I think it should be saying what it is doing. In general terms, for some other class a def. cnstr might be expensive or even unavailable. That should not be stopping us from applying the use-case. Just my view as always. Best, V.