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" Subject: Re: To Initialise or not Date: 1996/05/02 Message-ID: <3189052D.28D95ABC@escmail.orl.mmc.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 152643942 references: <318508FE.204B@sanders.lockheed.com> <3184E9CE.5C7A@lmtas.lmco.com> <3185E379.7C20@lmtas.lmco.com> <318792E8.28CC1042@escmail.orl.mmc.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: 1996-05-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > > T.E.D. said > > "Yes, but I don't think any compiler COULD easily help enforce this > > (speaking of the idea of considering it to be "wrong" to reference a > default initialized access value. > > Help means help. It does not mean solving the halting problem. It is > perfectly fine and easy for a compiler to give warnings in simple > cases (it is no different from giving these warnings for the cases > of other datatypes, such as integer). You can do it some of the time, > and that is helpful. Ahhh. If you are talking "in some cases", then you are quite right. In fact, most compilers I have used DO give that kind of help. To the best of my knowledge, there's not really any contreversy there. My understanding was that we were discussing universal detection. -- T.E.D. | Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com | | Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net | | URL - http://www.iag.net/~dennison |