Unless that value is 0 (in which case you can omit some part of the initializer
and the corresponding elements will be initialized to 0), there's no easy way.
Don't overlook the obvious solution, though:
int myArray[10] = { 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5 };
Elements with missing values will be initialized to 0:
int myArray[10] = { 1, 2 }; // initialize to 1,2,0,0,0...
So this will initialize all elements to 0:
int myArray[10] = { 0 }; // all elements 0
In C++, an empty initialization list will also initialize every element to 0.
This is not allowed with C:
int myArray[10] = {}; // all elements 0 in C++
Remember that objects with static storage duration will initialize to 0 if no
initializer is specified:
static int myArray[10]; // all elements 0
And that "0" doesn't necessarily mean "all-bits-zero", so using the above is
better and more portable than memset(). (Floating point values will be
initialized to +0, pointers to null value, etc.)
I use this to split string by a delimiter. The first puts the results in a pre-constructed vector, the second returns a new vector.
#include <string>
#include <sstream>
#include <vector>
#include <iterator>
template <typename Out>
void split(const std::string &s, char delim, Out result) {
std::istringstream iss(s);
std::string item;
while (std::getline(iss, item, delim)) {
*result++ = item;
}
}
std::vector<std::string> split(const std::string &s, char delim) {
std::vector<std::string> elems;
split(s, delim, std::back_inserter(elems));
return elems;
}
Note that this solution does not skip empty tokens, so the following will find 4 items, one of which is empty:
std::vector<std::string> x = split("one:two::three", ':');
Best Answer
If your compiler supports C++11, you can simply do:
This is available in GCC as of version 4.4. Unfortunately, VC++ 2010 seems to be lagging behind in this respect.
Alternatively, the Boost.Assign library uses non-macro magic to allow the following:
Or:
But keep in mind that this has some overhead (basically,
list_of
constructs astd::deque
under the hood) so for performance-critical code you'd be better off doing as Yacoby says.