From: Reid Sweatman (reids_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-08-17 16:03:04
>
> Yes, and that is a very conscious design decision. These classes are
> very low-level. So like built-in types, they don't default
> initialize the value. Same rationale as for the built-in types.
> Efficiency does count here. These things often appear in structs of
> which huge buffer arrays for I/O are constructed, and we don't want
> those initialized.
>
> Remember that bin/ubin are used almost exclusively for trafficking
> with the outside world via some I/O mechanism.
>
> Now if lots of people complain, the initialization polity could
> change. So people who think these classes should default initialize
> should speak up! Otherwise they will stay the way they are.
>
> Thanks for bring this up; it is the kind of design decision that
> needs to be widely exposed to the light of day. In general it is
> certainly better to default initialize.
How about including an initializer parameter that defaults to false, in the
same manner as allocators in container constructors?