What is the correct term for the list that initializes the data members?
- One colleague says initializer list, another initialization
list. - One SO answer says initializer list, another initialization
list.
Which is the correct* terminology?
PS: They all talk about data member initializer/ation lists.
*If correct is ambiguous to you, you can fall back to the term used be the Standard.
c++ class oop initialization terminology
add a comment |
- One colleague says initializer list, another initialization
list. - One SO answer says initializer list, another initialization
list.
Which is the correct* terminology?
PS: They all talk about data member initializer/ation lists.
*If correct is ambiguous to you, you can fall back to the term used be the Standard.
c++ class oop initialization terminology
I've downvoted this because I think it is pointless to split hairs between the two variants of the term.
– einpoklum
Nov 23 at 23:35
@einpoklum thank for justifying your vote. You assume that I knew that there is no correct term, and both variants can be correct. I didn't, and I feel that I am not the only one. Sorry though for posting a pointless question that polluted your question feed.
– gsamaras
Nov 24 at 10:04
add a comment |
- One colleague says initializer list, another initialization
list. - One SO answer says initializer list, another initialization
list.
Which is the correct* terminology?
PS: They all talk about data member initializer/ation lists.
*If correct is ambiguous to you, you can fall back to the term used be the Standard.
c++ class oop initialization terminology
- One colleague says initializer list, another initialization
list. - One SO answer says initializer list, another initialization
list.
Which is the correct* terminology?
PS: They all talk about data member initializer/ation lists.
*If correct is ambiguous to you, you can fall back to the term used be the Standard.
c++ class oop initialization terminology
c++ class oop initialization terminology
edited Nov 23 at 16:25
asked Nov 23 at 9:44
gsamaras
50.5k2399186
50.5k2399186
I've downvoted this because I think it is pointless to split hairs between the two variants of the term.
– einpoklum
Nov 23 at 23:35
@einpoklum thank for justifying your vote. You assume that I knew that there is no correct term, and both variants can be correct. I didn't, and I feel that I am not the only one. Sorry though for posting a pointless question that polluted your question feed.
– gsamaras
Nov 24 at 10:04
add a comment |
I've downvoted this because I think it is pointless to split hairs between the two variants of the term.
– einpoklum
Nov 23 at 23:35
@einpoklum thank for justifying your vote. You assume that I knew that there is no correct term, and both variants can be correct. I didn't, and I feel that I am not the only one. Sorry though for posting a pointless question that polluted your question feed.
– gsamaras
Nov 24 at 10:04
I've downvoted this because I think it is pointless to split hairs between the two variants of the term.
– einpoklum
Nov 23 at 23:35
I've downvoted this because I think it is pointless to split hairs between the two variants of the term.
– einpoklum
Nov 23 at 23:35
@einpoklum thank for justifying your vote. You assume that I knew that there is no correct term, and both variants can be correct. I didn't, and I feel that I am not the only one. Sorry though for posting a pointless question that polluted your question feed.
– gsamaras
Nov 24 at 10:04
@einpoklum thank for justifying your vote. You assume that I knew that there is no correct term, and both variants can be correct. I didn't, and I feel that I am not the only one. Sorry though for posting a pointless question that polluted your question feed.
– gsamaras
Nov 24 at 10:04
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Which is the correct terminology?
"Correct" being ambiguous, let's see what:
- The Standard calls it,
- The C++ gurus call it,
- The vulgus calls it.
The Standard
[lass.base.init]/1&2
1 In the definition of a constructor for a class, initializers for direct and virtual base class subobjects and non-static data members can be specified by a ctor-initializer, which has the form
ctor-initializer:
: mem-initializer-list
mem-initializer-list:
mem-initializer ...opt
mem-initializer-list , mem-initializer ...opt
mem-initializer:
mem-initializer-id ( expression-list opt )
mem-initializer-id braced-init-list
mem-initializer-id:
class-or-decltype
identifier
2 In a mem-initializer-id an initial unqualified identifier is looked up in the scope of the constructor's class and, if not found in that scope, it is looked up in the scope containing the constructor's definition. [ Note: If the constructor's class contains a member with the same name as a direct or virtual base class of the class, a mem-initializer-id naming the member or base class and composed of a single identifier refers to the class member. A mem-initializer-id for the hidden base class may be specified using a qualified name. — end note ] Unless the mem-initializer-id names the constructor's class, a non-static data member of the constructor's class, or a direct or virtual base of that class, the mem-initializer is ill-formed.
It's called a mem-initializer-list: this is a technical term I won't use personally.
The C++ guru
I'm currently watching the talks given at the CppCon2018, by likes of Herb Sutter, Kate Gregory, Timur Doumler, John Lakos, ... This is available on Youtube and I suggest you watch it too.
They use the term the initialiser list. Or when it's ambiguous the member initialiser list.
Now, let's compare some search results:
+----------------+-------------+
| Google scholar | Google book |
+------------------------------+----------------+-------------+
| "member initialization list" | 59 results | 948 results |
| "member initializer list" | 34 results | 553 results |
+------------------------------+----------------+-------------+
On written media, those gurus (well, everybody can write a paper or a book, but gurus tend to write more of those) call it the member initialization list most of the time.
Common C++ programmers
Well, there's the one that don't know what this is, and there's the one I've heard call it the initialiser list. I call it the initialiser list, even when talking in my mother tongue. In French, I've heard collegues call it what would translate to the initialisation list. There's some variation then I guess.
Conclusion
Call it the initialiser list. This is the correct term for me.
Today, while checking C++ version support for my answer, I got this warning:warning: extended initializer lists only available with -std=c++11
, which further supports your answer.
– gsamaras
Dec 5 at 12:42
add a comment |
The C++ standards - to date at least - only use the syntactic description mem-initializer-list which is specified as part of the parsing rules. The description is in a section entitled "Initializing bases and members" in all versions of the C++ standard dated 1998 and later. The section number does change (e.g. it's 12.6.2 in C++98, and 15.6.2 in C++17).
There is no english language description in the standard. Conventionally, people therefore use whatever wording that they consider represents the concept.
Personally, I use the term "initialiser list" since I am an english speaker in a country with accepted language more influenced by the United Kingdom than the United States.
add a comment |
CPP standard draft N4713 states:
15.6.2 Initializing bases and members [class.base.init]
3 A mem-initializer-list can initialize a base class using any class-or-decltype that denotes that base class type.
struct A { A(); };
typedef A global_A;
struct B { };
struct C: public A, public B { C(); };
C::C(): global_A() { } // mem-initializer for base A
5 A ctor-initializer may initialize a variant member of the constructor’s class. If a ctor-initializer specifies more than one mem-initializer for the same member or for the same base class, the ctor-initializer is ill-formed.
Bjarne Stroustrup uses the term member initializer list in his book "The C++ Programming Language" 4th Edition.
Scott Meyers uses the term member initialization list in his book "Effective C++" Item 4. He does not use the term used by the standard.
Online CPP FAQ (https://isocpp.org) uses the term constructor’s initialization list.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53444145%2fwhat-is-the-correct-term-for-the-list-that-initializes-the-data-members%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Which is the correct terminology?
"Correct" being ambiguous, let's see what:
- The Standard calls it,
- The C++ gurus call it,
- The vulgus calls it.
The Standard
[lass.base.init]/1&2
1 In the definition of a constructor for a class, initializers for direct and virtual base class subobjects and non-static data members can be specified by a ctor-initializer, which has the form
ctor-initializer:
: mem-initializer-list
mem-initializer-list:
mem-initializer ...opt
mem-initializer-list , mem-initializer ...opt
mem-initializer:
mem-initializer-id ( expression-list opt )
mem-initializer-id braced-init-list
mem-initializer-id:
class-or-decltype
identifier
2 In a mem-initializer-id an initial unqualified identifier is looked up in the scope of the constructor's class and, if not found in that scope, it is looked up in the scope containing the constructor's definition. [ Note: If the constructor's class contains a member with the same name as a direct or virtual base class of the class, a mem-initializer-id naming the member or base class and composed of a single identifier refers to the class member. A mem-initializer-id for the hidden base class may be specified using a qualified name. — end note ] Unless the mem-initializer-id names the constructor's class, a non-static data member of the constructor's class, or a direct or virtual base of that class, the mem-initializer is ill-formed.
It's called a mem-initializer-list: this is a technical term I won't use personally.
The C++ guru
I'm currently watching the talks given at the CppCon2018, by likes of Herb Sutter, Kate Gregory, Timur Doumler, John Lakos, ... This is available on Youtube and I suggest you watch it too.
They use the term the initialiser list. Or when it's ambiguous the member initialiser list.
Now, let's compare some search results:
+----------------+-------------+
| Google scholar | Google book |
+------------------------------+----------------+-------------+
| "member initialization list" | 59 results | 948 results |
| "member initializer list" | 34 results | 553 results |
+------------------------------+----------------+-------------+
On written media, those gurus (well, everybody can write a paper or a book, but gurus tend to write more of those) call it the member initialization list most of the time.
Common C++ programmers
Well, there's the one that don't know what this is, and there's the one I've heard call it the initialiser list. I call it the initialiser list, even when talking in my mother tongue. In French, I've heard collegues call it what would translate to the initialisation list. There's some variation then I guess.
Conclusion
Call it the initialiser list. This is the correct term for me.
Today, while checking C++ version support for my answer, I got this warning:warning: extended initializer lists only available with -std=c++11
, which further supports your answer.
– gsamaras
Dec 5 at 12:42
add a comment |
Which is the correct terminology?
"Correct" being ambiguous, let's see what:
- The Standard calls it,
- The C++ gurus call it,
- The vulgus calls it.
The Standard
[lass.base.init]/1&2
1 In the definition of a constructor for a class, initializers for direct and virtual base class subobjects and non-static data members can be specified by a ctor-initializer, which has the form
ctor-initializer:
: mem-initializer-list
mem-initializer-list:
mem-initializer ...opt
mem-initializer-list , mem-initializer ...opt
mem-initializer:
mem-initializer-id ( expression-list opt )
mem-initializer-id braced-init-list
mem-initializer-id:
class-or-decltype
identifier
2 In a mem-initializer-id an initial unqualified identifier is looked up in the scope of the constructor's class and, if not found in that scope, it is looked up in the scope containing the constructor's definition. [ Note: If the constructor's class contains a member with the same name as a direct or virtual base class of the class, a mem-initializer-id naming the member or base class and composed of a single identifier refers to the class member. A mem-initializer-id for the hidden base class may be specified using a qualified name. — end note ] Unless the mem-initializer-id names the constructor's class, a non-static data member of the constructor's class, or a direct or virtual base of that class, the mem-initializer is ill-formed.
It's called a mem-initializer-list: this is a technical term I won't use personally.
The C++ guru
I'm currently watching the talks given at the CppCon2018, by likes of Herb Sutter, Kate Gregory, Timur Doumler, John Lakos, ... This is available on Youtube and I suggest you watch it too.
They use the term the initialiser list. Or when it's ambiguous the member initialiser list.
Now, let's compare some search results:
+----------------+-------------+
| Google scholar | Google book |
+------------------------------+----------------+-------------+
| "member initialization list" | 59 results | 948 results |
| "member initializer list" | 34 results | 553 results |
+------------------------------+----------------+-------------+
On written media, those gurus (well, everybody can write a paper or a book, but gurus tend to write more of those) call it the member initialization list most of the time.
Common C++ programmers
Well, there's the one that don't know what this is, and there's the one I've heard call it the initialiser list. I call it the initialiser list, even when talking in my mother tongue. In French, I've heard collegues call it what would translate to the initialisation list. There's some variation then I guess.
Conclusion
Call it the initialiser list. This is the correct term for me.
Today, while checking C++ version support for my answer, I got this warning:warning: extended initializer lists only available with -std=c++11
, which further supports your answer.
– gsamaras
Dec 5 at 12:42
add a comment |
Which is the correct terminology?
"Correct" being ambiguous, let's see what:
- The Standard calls it,
- The C++ gurus call it,
- The vulgus calls it.
The Standard
[lass.base.init]/1&2
1 In the definition of a constructor for a class, initializers for direct and virtual base class subobjects and non-static data members can be specified by a ctor-initializer, which has the form
ctor-initializer:
: mem-initializer-list
mem-initializer-list:
mem-initializer ...opt
mem-initializer-list , mem-initializer ...opt
mem-initializer:
mem-initializer-id ( expression-list opt )
mem-initializer-id braced-init-list
mem-initializer-id:
class-or-decltype
identifier
2 In a mem-initializer-id an initial unqualified identifier is looked up in the scope of the constructor's class and, if not found in that scope, it is looked up in the scope containing the constructor's definition. [ Note: If the constructor's class contains a member with the same name as a direct or virtual base class of the class, a mem-initializer-id naming the member or base class and composed of a single identifier refers to the class member. A mem-initializer-id for the hidden base class may be specified using a qualified name. — end note ] Unless the mem-initializer-id names the constructor's class, a non-static data member of the constructor's class, or a direct or virtual base of that class, the mem-initializer is ill-formed.
It's called a mem-initializer-list: this is a technical term I won't use personally.
The C++ guru
I'm currently watching the talks given at the CppCon2018, by likes of Herb Sutter, Kate Gregory, Timur Doumler, John Lakos, ... This is available on Youtube and I suggest you watch it too.
They use the term the initialiser list. Or when it's ambiguous the member initialiser list.
Now, let's compare some search results:
+----------------+-------------+
| Google scholar | Google book |
+------------------------------+----------------+-------------+
| "member initialization list" | 59 results | 948 results |
| "member initializer list" | 34 results | 553 results |
+------------------------------+----------------+-------------+
On written media, those gurus (well, everybody can write a paper or a book, but gurus tend to write more of those) call it the member initialization list most of the time.
Common C++ programmers
Well, there's the one that don't know what this is, and there's the one I've heard call it the initialiser list. I call it the initialiser list, even when talking in my mother tongue. In French, I've heard collegues call it what would translate to the initialisation list. There's some variation then I guess.
Conclusion
Call it the initialiser list. This is the correct term for me.
Which is the correct terminology?
"Correct" being ambiguous, let's see what:
- The Standard calls it,
- The C++ gurus call it,
- The vulgus calls it.
The Standard
[lass.base.init]/1&2
1 In the definition of a constructor for a class, initializers for direct and virtual base class subobjects and non-static data members can be specified by a ctor-initializer, which has the form
ctor-initializer:
: mem-initializer-list
mem-initializer-list:
mem-initializer ...opt
mem-initializer-list , mem-initializer ...opt
mem-initializer:
mem-initializer-id ( expression-list opt )
mem-initializer-id braced-init-list
mem-initializer-id:
class-or-decltype
identifier
2 In a mem-initializer-id an initial unqualified identifier is looked up in the scope of the constructor's class and, if not found in that scope, it is looked up in the scope containing the constructor's definition. [ Note: If the constructor's class contains a member with the same name as a direct or virtual base class of the class, a mem-initializer-id naming the member or base class and composed of a single identifier refers to the class member. A mem-initializer-id for the hidden base class may be specified using a qualified name. — end note ] Unless the mem-initializer-id names the constructor's class, a non-static data member of the constructor's class, or a direct or virtual base of that class, the mem-initializer is ill-formed.
It's called a mem-initializer-list: this is a technical term I won't use personally.
The C++ guru
I'm currently watching the talks given at the CppCon2018, by likes of Herb Sutter, Kate Gregory, Timur Doumler, John Lakos, ... This is available on Youtube and I suggest you watch it too.
They use the term the initialiser list. Or when it's ambiguous the member initialiser list.
Now, let's compare some search results:
+----------------+-------------+
| Google scholar | Google book |
+------------------------------+----------------+-------------+
| "member initialization list" | 59 results | 948 results |
| "member initializer list" | 34 results | 553 results |
+------------------------------+----------------+-------------+
On written media, those gurus (well, everybody can write a paper or a book, but gurus tend to write more of those) call it the member initialization list most of the time.
Common C++ programmers
Well, there's the one that don't know what this is, and there's the one I've heard call it the initialiser list. I call it the initialiser list, even when talking in my mother tongue. In French, I've heard collegues call it what would translate to the initialisation list. There's some variation then I guess.
Conclusion
Call it the initialiser list. This is the correct term for me.
edited Nov 25 at 9:04
gsamaras
50.5k2399186
50.5k2399186
answered Nov 23 at 10:03
YSC
20.7k34594
20.7k34594
Today, while checking C++ version support for my answer, I got this warning:warning: extended initializer lists only available with -std=c++11
, which further supports your answer.
– gsamaras
Dec 5 at 12:42
add a comment |
Today, while checking C++ version support for my answer, I got this warning:warning: extended initializer lists only available with -std=c++11
, which further supports your answer.
– gsamaras
Dec 5 at 12:42
Today, while checking C++ version support for my answer, I got this warning:
warning: extended initializer lists only available with -std=c++11
, which further supports your answer.– gsamaras
Dec 5 at 12:42
Today, while checking C++ version support for my answer, I got this warning:
warning: extended initializer lists only available with -std=c++11
, which further supports your answer.– gsamaras
Dec 5 at 12:42
add a comment |
The C++ standards - to date at least - only use the syntactic description mem-initializer-list which is specified as part of the parsing rules. The description is in a section entitled "Initializing bases and members" in all versions of the C++ standard dated 1998 and later. The section number does change (e.g. it's 12.6.2 in C++98, and 15.6.2 in C++17).
There is no english language description in the standard. Conventionally, people therefore use whatever wording that they consider represents the concept.
Personally, I use the term "initialiser list" since I am an english speaker in a country with accepted language more influenced by the United Kingdom than the United States.
add a comment |
The C++ standards - to date at least - only use the syntactic description mem-initializer-list which is specified as part of the parsing rules. The description is in a section entitled "Initializing bases and members" in all versions of the C++ standard dated 1998 and later. The section number does change (e.g. it's 12.6.2 in C++98, and 15.6.2 in C++17).
There is no english language description in the standard. Conventionally, people therefore use whatever wording that they consider represents the concept.
Personally, I use the term "initialiser list" since I am an english speaker in a country with accepted language more influenced by the United Kingdom than the United States.
add a comment |
The C++ standards - to date at least - only use the syntactic description mem-initializer-list which is specified as part of the parsing rules. The description is in a section entitled "Initializing bases and members" in all versions of the C++ standard dated 1998 and later. The section number does change (e.g. it's 12.6.2 in C++98, and 15.6.2 in C++17).
There is no english language description in the standard. Conventionally, people therefore use whatever wording that they consider represents the concept.
Personally, I use the term "initialiser list" since I am an english speaker in a country with accepted language more influenced by the United Kingdom than the United States.
The C++ standards - to date at least - only use the syntactic description mem-initializer-list which is specified as part of the parsing rules. The description is in a section entitled "Initializing bases and members" in all versions of the C++ standard dated 1998 and later. The section number does change (e.g. it's 12.6.2 in C++98, and 15.6.2 in C++17).
There is no english language description in the standard. Conventionally, people therefore use whatever wording that they consider represents the concept.
Personally, I use the term "initialiser list" since I am an english speaker in a country with accepted language more influenced by the United Kingdom than the United States.
edited Nov 23 at 23:27
answered Nov 23 at 10:04
Peter
27.3k32155
27.3k32155
add a comment |
add a comment |
CPP standard draft N4713 states:
15.6.2 Initializing bases and members [class.base.init]
3 A mem-initializer-list can initialize a base class using any class-or-decltype that denotes that base class type.
struct A { A(); };
typedef A global_A;
struct B { };
struct C: public A, public B { C(); };
C::C(): global_A() { } // mem-initializer for base A
5 A ctor-initializer may initialize a variant member of the constructor’s class. If a ctor-initializer specifies more than one mem-initializer for the same member or for the same base class, the ctor-initializer is ill-formed.
Bjarne Stroustrup uses the term member initializer list in his book "The C++ Programming Language" 4th Edition.
Scott Meyers uses the term member initialization list in his book "Effective C++" Item 4. He does not use the term used by the standard.
Online CPP FAQ (https://isocpp.org) uses the term constructor’s initialization list.
add a comment |
CPP standard draft N4713 states:
15.6.2 Initializing bases and members [class.base.init]
3 A mem-initializer-list can initialize a base class using any class-or-decltype that denotes that base class type.
struct A { A(); };
typedef A global_A;
struct B { };
struct C: public A, public B { C(); };
C::C(): global_A() { } // mem-initializer for base A
5 A ctor-initializer may initialize a variant member of the constructor’s class. If a ctor-initializer specifies more than one mem-initializer for the same member or for the same base class, the ctor-initializer is ill-formed.
Bjarne Stroustrup uses the term member initializer list in his book "The C++ Programming Language" 4th Edition.
Scott Meyers uses the term member initialization list in his book "Effective C++" Item 4. He does not use the term used by the standard.
Online CPP FAQ (https://isocpp.org) uses the term constructor’s initialization list.
add a comment |
CPP standard draft N4713 states:
15.6.2 Initializing bases and members [class.base.init]
3 A mem-initializer-list can initialize a base class using any class-or-decltype that denotes that base class type.
struct A { A(); };
typedef A global_A;
struct B { };
struct C: public A, public B { C(); };
C::C(): global_A() { } // mem-initializer for base A
5 A ctor-initializer may initialize a variant member of the constructor’s class. If a ctor-initializer specifies more than one mem-initializer for the same member or for the same base class, the ctor-initializer is ill-formed.
Bjarne Stroustrup uses the term member initializer list in his book "The C++ Programming Language" 4th Edition.
Scott Meyers uses the term member initialization list in his book "Effective C++" Item 4. He does not use the term used by the standard.
Online CPP FAQ (https://isocpp.org) uses the term constructor’s initialization list.
CPP standard draft N4713 states:
15.6.2 Initializing bases and members [class.base.init]
3 A mem-initializer-list can initialize a base class using any class-or-decltype that denotes that base class type.
struct A { A(); };
typedef A global_A;
struct B { };
struct C: public A, public B { C(); };
C::C(): global_A() { } // mem-initializer for base A
5 A ctor-initializer may initialize a variant member of the constructor’s class. If a ctor-initializer specifies more than one mem-initializer for the same member or for the same base class, the ctor-initializer is ill-formed.
Bjarne Stroustrup uses the term member initializer list in his book "The C++ Programming Language" 4th Edition.
Scott Meyers uses the term member initialization list in his book "Effective C++" Item 4. He does not use the term used by the standard.
Online CPP FAQ (https://isocpp.org) uses the term constructor’s initialization list.
edited Nov 23 at 10:34
answered Nov 23 at 9:58
P.W
10.9k3742
10.9k3742
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53444145%2fwhat-is-the-correct-term-for-the-list-that-initializes-the-data-members%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I've downvoted this because I think it is pointless to split hairs between the two variants of the term.
– einpoklum
Nov 23 at 23:35
@einpoklum thank for justifying your vote. You assume that I knew that there is no correct term, and both variants can be correct. I didn't, and I feel that I am not the only one. Sorry though for posting a pointless question that polluted your question feed.
– gsamaras
Nov 24 at 10:04