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: 103376,803df5f3f60558d5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: frank@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (Frank Manning)
Subject: Re: Uninitialized "out" parameters
Date: 1996/07/25
Message-ID: <4t6f9d$12p0@news.ccit.arizona.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 169987269
references: <31EEACDA.64880EEB@sage.inel.gov>
 <4t1s3n$chv@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <Duzu15.95A@world.std.com>
 <4t4r0s$8te@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
organization: College of Engineering and Mines, University of Arizona
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <4t4r0s$8te@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au
(Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:

>          Roughly the third most frightening thing I have seen in a computer
> manual is the advice
>         "If your program is halting with range-checking errors,
>          and you don't want to address those problems immediately,
>          you can always omit the {$R+} compiler directive
>          [thus suppressing the range checks] for the time being."
> to be found in the Turbo Pascal 5.0 User Guide on p207.

Not to be argumentative, but I'm curious as to why you think this is so
bad? Granted, it's bad if a programmer gives in to the temptation to
release a program that fails unless range checks are suppressed. On the
other hand, it might be useful to examine the behavior of the program if
you can somehow prevent it from halting, if only for diagnostic purposes.

-- Frank Manning