在类中使用相同的变量可以在构造函数C ++中使用吗？

Question

If I have a class:

class className{
    int i;
public:
    className(int value);
};

What is considered as the best practise for initializing the class variable 'i' from the constructor as per the below choices?

1) Use the actual field name with an underscore:

className::className(int i_){
    i = i_;
}

2) Use the actual field name with "this":

className::className(int i){
    this->i = i;
}

3) Completely inconsistent things like:

className::className(int value){
    i = value;
}

I have seen this question being directly addressed for Java but not so much for C++. I ask because I would favor number 2 as I would personally prefer less variable names being made. However I would like to know what further considerations this could mean for the compiler or linker etc. I would also like to stick with the C++ norm.

Many Thanks!

Answer 1

Yes that's ok.

Some people actually think it idiomatic.

However, your samples all lack the use of initializer lists :)

class className{
    int i;
public:
    className(int value) : i(value) {};
};

I suggest to avoid the confusion with duplicate names. It makes the compiler complain if you accidentally mess up.

Answer 2

The best practice is to initialize your member variables in the initializer list:

className::className(int i_) : i(i_){}
                               ^^^^^

Reasons :

1. Performance : You avoid unnecessary calls to members' default constructors.
2. Having Members not default constructible: If you have member variables that aren't default constructible (ie, they don't have a default constructor), you are obliged to initialize them in the initializer list.
3. Having Members const -qualified: Same as 2.
4. Having Members references to objects: Same as 2.
5. Readability : Opinion based.
6. Extensibility : Opinion based.

As far as it concerns the naming issue: IMHO, it's primarily opinion based. Personally, for parameters of a constructor I use the suffix underscore as well.

Answer 3

I am in agreement with @sehe, to clarify on his context of initializer lists:

className::className(int i_) : i(i_) {}

However! I think the identifier names are backwards in terms of appropriateness. i_ should be the private member variable, and i should be the constructor parameter.

My notes on each "choice": 1) It's easy to see which parameters correspond with one another here 2) It's explicitness here 3) I think you've already concluded your opinion on this one by wording it 'Completely Inconsistent' :).