5 ms·

It's also easy to provide a default factory: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/default/trait.Default.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/default/trait.Default.html

• mikepurvis 5y ago
  True, but the naming does matter. Calling Thing::default() clearly communicates that your just getting baseline values and not a lot of magical other initialization stuff going on— with a Thing::Thing() in C++, you're really at the mercy of whatever the project conventions are for how "fat" the constructor is going to be. I think the naming is also important for cases where there are potentially multiple reasonable defaults, even something as basic as the difference between Vector3::Vector3() and Vector3::zero().
  • TheMonarchist 5y ago
    > Calling Thing::default() clearly communicates that your just getting baseline values and not a lot of magical other initialization stuff going on— with a Thing::Thing() in C++, you're really at the mercy of whatever the project conventions are for how "fat" the constructor is going to be. In C++ the constructor without arguments is called default constructor. Of course the expectations depend on conventions, but usually it's something from uninitialized garbage to an empty state.