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 Subject: Re: To Initialise or not Date: 1996/05/06 Message-ID: <318E3AE5.F14@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 153386442 references: <318508FE.204B@sanders.lockheed.com> <3184E9CE.5C7A@lmtas.lmco.com> <3185E379.7C20@lmtas.lmco.com> 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: 1996-05-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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. By the way, my experience with maintaining code is that anything that is likely to get out of sync with the actual code is actively harmful, and has to have solid justification. Also, a comment is only useful if it clearly communicates its intent to the reader of the code, particularly if the reader is not the author. I'm not sure this technique falls into that category without the reader having more information (like a copy of your coding standards). And, if the reader doesn't have access to the coding standards... --- LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"