I came to know and use C++ for 10 years now and I've just seen this syntax:

for(int i{0}; i<5; i++) { }

WTF is this shit??

Not sure what is the problem, but using

int i{0} is the same as int i = 0 in c++.

And using {} is actually a safer way too. Prefer {} initialization over alternatives unless you have a strong reason not to.

example :

int x2 = val; // if val == 7.9, x2 becomes 7 (bad)

int x3 {val}; // error: possible truncation (good)

Yeah, you can also initialize variables with parentheses, which has on several occasions screwed me over when trying to declare methods

@lbfalvy yeah, best practice is to pick one (for most '=') and stick to that one in the project.

But again, mostly of all devs will use '='.

Yet it is not the safest option to use in C++ (unless you learned C++ in the 80')

Here is some info on the convention :

https://github.com/isocpp/...

We are now at C++ 23... people should start to move on from the old ones.

(this was a new feature in C++ 11:

C++11 provides a syntax that allows for fully uniform type initialization that works on any object)

@Grumm While I know the syntax, I have never seen it being used in a for loop, nor being mentioned as a better way to do things..

I think it's people just not knowing about it for the most part?

Thank you for the info~

@Grumm implicit truncating casts are just trouble all around, I'm not sure why c++ still hasn't put them behind a compatibility flag. I think some compilers at least produce a warning.

@Grumm are you Grumm as in the Mojang developer Grumm?

holy shit, since when is this a thing? I haven't written C++ since college.

@ElectroArchiver I agree that in a for loop it is not really needed. But if the code uses that for all the other variables, then yes it makes sense.

@Grumm I didn't suggest that..

@ElectroArchiver My bad. Don't worry, I think most don't use this syntax.

As long as it works, using '=' is fine and accepted.