From ae3e4ea50026d383f1db9a7697a0c8b0ef4eab25 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Graham Percival Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 21:01:37 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] CG: reminder about GOP initalization lists. --- Documentation/contributor/administration.itexi | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/contributor/administration.itexi b/Documentation/contributor/administration.itexi index 6d8533107c..da8f48276c 100644 --- a/Documentation/contributor/administration.itexi +++ b/Documentation/contributor/administration.itexi @@ -513,6 +513,16 @@ suggested in a different proposal), this proposal may become moot. (prep: 1 hour. discuss: 5 hours) +@item @strong{initalizer lists}: +shoudl we use initalizer lists for C++? AFAIK they make no +difference for built-in types, but there's some weird case where +it's more efficient for objects, or something. + +Probably not worth making this a weekly thing on its own, but we +can probably wrap it up with some other code-related questions. + +(prep: 15 minutes. discuss: 3 hours) + @end itemize @node Policy decisions (finished) -- 2.39.5