From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c1131ea1fcd630a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lmtas.lmco.com>
Subject: Re: To Initialise or not
Date: 1996/04/30
Message-ID: <3185E454.2F4B@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 152243193
references: <318508FE.204B@sanders.lockheed.com>
 <3184E9CE.5C7A@lmtas.lmco.com> <dewar.830827026@schonberg>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Date: 1996-04-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> I don't think that's the point at all, the point is to make it explicit
> to the reader that the initial value of null is important from a semantic
> point of view, rather than just an accident of the definition.

However, the way the language is designed, shouldn't I always assume that
the initial value of null for an access value is significant to the
application, regardless as to whether it's implicit or explicit?

-- 
LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"