"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> a �crit dans le message de news:vld62odqnfei2d@corp.supernews.com...
> > Matthew Heaney <matthewjheaney@earthlink.net> writes:
> >
> > >    Null_Object : T := null;
> >
> > > I find the latter convention confusing, because it suggests that if
> > > the initialization part were omitted, then the object wouldn't be
> > > initialized.  But that would be incorrect.
>
> *I* find
>      Null_Object : T;
> confusing. A maintenance programmer probably doesn't know the class of
> object that T represents,

I understand that concern, but it vanishes with reasonable identifiers:

Null_Object : String_Pointer;

OK for you?
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr