Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


#ActualAgbahlok

Posted 03 October 2012 - 06:09 PM

Hello.
Not so long ago I started to learn D3D11 and at the moment I'm swimming through "Beginning DirectX 11 Game Programming" book. I found one thing, which I'm curious about. Author said that constructor’s member initialize list can be more efficient and is better programming practice than letting a constructor do the job in default way.

My question is as in topic, is that way of initializing members really better ?

Example from book:

D3DBase::D3DBase() : driverType_( D3D_DRIVER_TYPE_NULL ), featureLevel_( D3D_FEATURE_LEVEL_11_0 ),
                    d3dDevice_( 0 ), d3dContext_( 0 ), swapChain_( 0 ), backBufferTarget_( 0 )

Thank you in advance for any help.

#4Agbahlok

Posted 03 October 2012 - 06:09 PM

Hello.
Not so long ago I started to learn D3D11 and at the moment I'm swimming through "Beginning DirectX 11 Game Programming" book. I found one thing, which I'm curious about. Author said that constructor’s member initialize list can be more efficient and is better programming practice than letting a constructor do the job in default way.

My question is as in topic, is that way of initializing members really better ?

Example from book:

D3DBase::D3DBase() : driverType_( D3D_DRIVER_TYPE_NULL ), featureLevel_( D3D_FEATURE_LEVEL_11_0 ),
                         d3dDevice_( 0 ), d3dContext_( 0 ), swapChain_( 0 ), backBufferTarget_( 0 )

Thank you in advance for any help.

#3Agbahlok

Posted 03 October 2012 - 06:08 PM

Hello.
Not so long ago I started to learn D3D11 and at the moment I'm swimming through "Beginning DirectX 11 Game Programming" book. I found one thing, which I'm curious about. Author said that constructor’s member initialize list can be more efficient and is better programming practice than letting a constructor do the job in default way.

My question is as in topic, is that way of initializing members really better ?

Example from book:

D3DBase::D3DBase() : driverType_( D3D_DRIVER_TYPE_NULL ), featureLevel_( D3D_FEATURE_LEVEL_11_0 ),
                                      d3dDevice_( 0 ), d3dContext_( 0 ), swapChain_( 0 ), backBufferTarget_( 0 )

Thank you in advance for any help.

#2Agbahlok

Posted 03 October 2012 - 06:08 PM

Hello.
Not so long ago I started to learn D3D11 and at the moment I'm swimming through "Beginning DirectX 11 Game Programming" book. I found one thing, which I'm curious about. Author said that constructor’s member initialize list can be more efficient and is better programming practice than letting a constructor do the job in default way.

My question is as in topic, is that way of initializing members really better ?

Example from book:

D3DBase::D3DBase() : driverType_( D3D_DRIVER_TYPE_NULL ), featureLevel_( D3D_FEATURE_LEVEL_11_0 ),
                                              d3dDevice_( 0 ), d3dContext_( 0 ), swapChain_( 0 ), backBufferTarget_( 0 )

Thank you in advance for any help.

#1Agbahlok

Posted 03 October 2012 - 06:08 PM

Hello.
Not so long ago I started to learn D3D11 and at the moment I'm swimming through "Beginning DirectX 11 Game Programming" book. I found one thing, which I'm curious about. Author said that constructor’s member initialize list can be more efficient and is better programming practice than letting a constructor do the job in default way.

My question is as in topic, is that way of initializing members really better ?

Example from book:

D3DBase::D3DBase() : driverType_( D3D_DRIVER_TYPE_NULL ), featureLevel_( D3D_FEATURE_LEVEL_11_0 ),
d3dDevice_( 0 ), d3dContext_( 0 ), swapChain_( 0 ), backBufferTarget_( 0 )

Thank you in advance for any help.

PARTNERS