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: "Theodore E. Dennison" <dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
Subject: Re: To Initialise or not
Date: 1996/05/01
Message-ID: <318792E8.28CC1042@escmail.orl.mmc.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 152439832
references: <318508FE.204B@sanders.lockheed.com>
 <3184E9CE.5C7A@lmtas.lmco.com> <DqnGoz.10v@world.std.com>
 <3185E379.7C20@lmtas.lmco.com> <Dqp3HF.12t@world.std.com>
 <Dqq1F9.CK3@thomsoft.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Lockheed Martin Information Systems
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m)
Date: 1996-05-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Keith Thompson wrote:
> 
> I like the idea.  The only problem is that the compiler won't help
> you enforce your promise not to read the value.  An explicit ":= null"
> initialization is like a comment -- it's extremely useful, but it can
> get out of sync with the actual code.

Yes, but I don't think any compiler COULD easily help enforce this (It
sounds a lot like the halting problem to me). That is what code 
walkthroughs are for.

-- 
T.E.D.          
                |  Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com  |
                |  Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net              |
                |  URL  - http://www.iag.net/~dennison         |