For example, I cannot write this:
class A
{
vector<int> v(12, 1);
};
I can only write this:
class A
{
vector<int> v1{ 12, 1 };
vector<int> v2 = vector<int>(12, 1);
};
Why is there a difference between these two declaration syntaxes?
The rationale behind this choice is explicitly mentioned in the related proposal for non static data member initializers :
An issue raised in Kona regarding scope of identifiers:
During discussion in the Core Working Group at the September ’07 meeting in Kona, a question arose about the scope of identifiers in the initializer. Do we want to allow class scope with the possibility of forward lookup; or do we want to require that the initializers be well-defined at the point that they’re parsed?
What’s desired:
The motivation for class-scope lookup is that we’d like to be able to put anything in a non-static data member’s initializer that we could put in a mem-initializer without significantly changing the semantics (modulo direct initialization vs. copy initialization):
int x();
struct S {
int i;
S() : i(x()) {} // currently well-formed, uses S::x()
// ...
static int x();
};
struct T {
int i = x(); // should use T::x(), ::x() would be a surprise
// ...
static int x();
};
Problem 1:
Unfortunately, this makes initializers of the “( expression-list )” form ambiguous at the time that the declaration is being parsed:
struct S {
int i(x); // data member with initializer
// ...
static int x;
};
struct T {
int i(x); // member function declaration
// ...
typedef int x;
};
One possible solution is to rely on the existing rule that, if a declaration could be an object or a function, then it’s a function:
struct S {
int i(j); // ill-formed...parsed as a member function,
// type j looked up but not found
// ...
static int j;
};
A similar solution would be to apply another existing rule, currently used only in templates, that if T could be a type or something else, then it’s something else; and we can use “typename” if we really mean a type:
struct S {
int i(x); // unabmiguously a data member
int j(typename y); // unabmiguously a member function
};
Both of those solutions introduce subtleties that are likely to be misunderstood by many users (as evidenced by the many questions on comp.lang.c++ about why “int i();” at block scope doesn’t declare a default-initialized int).
The solution proposed in this paper is to allow only initializers of the “= initializer-clause” and “{ initializer-list }” forms. That solves the ambiguity problem in most cases, for example:
HashingFunction hash_algorithm{"MD5"};
Here, we could not use the = form because HasningFunction’s constructor is explicit. In especially tricky cases, a type might have to be mentioned twice. Consider:
vector<int> x = 3; // error: the constructor taking an int is explicit
vector<int> x(3); // three elements default-initialized
vector<int> x{3}; // one element with the value 3
In that case, we have to chose between the two alternatives by using the appropriate notation:
vector<int> x = vector<int>(3); // rather than vector<int> x(3);
vector<int> x{3}; // one element with the value 3
Problem 2:
Another issue is that, because we propose no change to the rules for initializing static data members, adding the static keyword could make a well-formed initializer ill-formed:
struct S {
const int i = f(); // well-formed with forward lookup
static const int j = f(); // always ill-formed for statics
// ...
constexpr static int f() { return 0; }
};
Problem 3:
A third issue is that class-scope lookup could turn a compile-time error into a run-time error:
struct S {
int i = j; // ill-formed without forward lookup, undefined behavior with
int j = 3;
};
(Unless caught by the compiler, i might be intialized with the undefined value of j.)
The proposal:
CWG had a 6-to-3 straw poll in Kona in favor of class-scope lookup; and that is what this paper proposes, with initializers for non-static data members limited to the “= initializer-clause” and “{ initializer-list }” forms.
We believe:
Problem 1: This problem does not occur as we don’t propose the () notation. The = and {} initializer notations do not suffer from this problem.
Problem 2: adding the static keyword makes a number of differences, this being the least of them.
Problem 3: this is not a new problem, but is the same order-of-initialization problem that already exists with constructor initializers.
One possible reason is that allowing parentheses would lead us back to the most vexing parse in no time. Consider the two types below:
struct foo {};
struct bar
{
bar(foo const&) {}
};
Now, you have a data member of type bar that you want to initialize, so you define it as
struct A
{
bar B(foo());
};
But what you've done above is declare a function named B that returns a bar object by value, and takes a single argument that's a function having the signature foo() (returns a foo and doesn't take any arguments).
Judging by the number and frequency of questions asked on StackOverflow that deal with this issue, this is something most C++ programmers find surprising and unintuitive. Adding the new brace-or-equal-initializer syntax was a chance to avoid this ambiguity and start with a clean slate, which is likely the reason the C++ committee chose to do so.
bar B{foo{}};
bar B = foo();
Both lines above declare an object named B of type bar, as expected.
Aside from the guesswork above, I'd like to point out that you're doing two vastly different things in your example above.
vector<int> v1{ 12, 1 };
vector<int> v2 = vector<int>(12, 1);
The first line initializes v1 to a vector that contains two elements, 12 and 1. The second creates a vector v2 that contains 12 elements, each initialized to 1.
Be careful of this rule - if a type defines a constructor that takes an initializer_list<T>, then that constructor is always considered first when the initializer for the type is a braced-init-list. The other constructors will be considered only if the one taking the initializer_list is not viable.
