Question

I would like to see how this example of existing code would be able to take advantage of the C++0x initializer list feature.

Example0:

#include <vector>
#include <string>
struct Ask {
    std::string prompt;
    Ask(std::string a_prompt):prompt(a_prompt){}
};
struct AskString : public Ask{
    int min;
    int max;
    AskString(std::string a_prompt, int a_min, int a_max):
        Ask(a_prompt), min(a_min), max(a_max){}
};
int main()
{
    std::vector<Ask*> ui;
    ui.push_back(new AskString("Enter your name: ", 3, 25));
    ui.push_back(new AskString("Enter your city: ", 2, 25));
    ui.push_back(new Ask("Enter your age: "));
}

Would it support something like this:

Example1:

std::vector<Ask*> ui ={
    AskString("Enter your name: ", 3, 25),
    AskString("Enter your city: ", 2, 25),
    Ask("Enter your age: ")
    };

Or must it have literals like this?:

Example2:

std::vector<Ask*> ui ={
    {"Enter your name: ", 3, 25},
    {"Enter your city: ", 2, 25},
    {"Enter your age: "}
    };

If so how would the difference between AskString and Ask be handled?

Answer 1

You last examples wouldn’t be allowed as you ask for pointers but try to provide local temporary objects instead.

std::vector<Ask*> ui ={
    new AskString{"Enter your name: ", 3, 25},
    new AskString{"Enter your city: ", 2, 25},
    new Ask{"Enter your age: "}
    };

That would be allowed and there would be no type ambiguity.

That would be right too :

std::vector<Ask*> ui ={
        new AskString("Enter your name: ", 3, 25),
        new AskString("Enter your city: ", 2, 25),
        new Ask("Enter your age: ")
        };

And your example is more like :

std::vector<Ask> ui ={  // not pointers
    {"Enter your name: "},
    {"Enter your city: "},
    {"Enter your age: "}
    };

std::vector<AskString> uiString ={  // not pointers
    {"Enter your name: ", 3, 25},
    {"Enter your city: ", 2, 25},
    {"Enter your age: ", 7, 42}
    };

and again there would be no ambiguity on the types.