In C++ the C-style initializers were replaced by constructors which by compile time can ensure that only valid initializations are performed (i.e. after initialization the object members are consistent).
It is a good practice, but sometimes a pre-initialization is handy, like in your example. OOP solves this by abstract classes or creational design patterns.
In my opinion, using this secure way kills the simplicity and sometimes the security trade-off might be too expensive, since simple code does not need sophisticated design to stay maintainable.
As an alternative solution, I suggest to define macros using lambdas to simplify the initialization to look almost like C-style:
struct address {
int street_no;
const char *street_name;
const char *city;
const char *prov;
const char *postal_code;
};
#define ADDRESS_OPEN [] { address _={};
#define ADDRESS_CLOSE ; return _; }()
#define ADDRESS(x) ADDRESS_OPEN x ADDRESS_CLOSE
The ADDRESS macro expands to
[] { address _={}; /* definition... */ ; return _; }()
which creates and calls the lambda. Macro parameters are also comma separated, so you need to put the initializer into brackets and call like
address temp_address = ADDRESS(( _.city = "Hamilton", _.prov = "Ontario" ));
You could also write generalized macro initializer
#define INIT_OPEN(type) [] { type _={};
#define INIT_CLOSE ; return _; }()
#define INIT(type,x) INIT_OPEN(type) x INIT_CLOSE
but then the call is slightly less beautiful
address temp_address = INIT(address,( _.city = "Hamilton", _.prov = "Ontario" ));
however you can define the ADDRESS macro using general INIT macro easily
#define ADDRESS(x) INIT(address,x)
