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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!olivea!uunet!tron!carson
From: carson@tron.UUCP (Dana Carson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Pre-condition vs. Post-condition (actually inintialization)
Message-ID: <715@tron.UUCP>
Date: 28 Mar 91 20:43:29 GMT
References: <20600091@inmet> <23141@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> <2918@sparko.gwu.edu> <2929@sparko.gwu.edu> <5074@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> <2937@sparko.gwu.edu>
Reply-To: carson@tron.bwi.wec.com.UMD.EDU (Dana Carson)
Organization: Westinghouse Electric Corporation
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <2937@sparko.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu () writes:
>make life a whole lot easier by making it _possible_ to initialize all
>types with default initial values, consistently. I am not interested in
>having clients depend upon the initial values; rather I want clients
>to be able to depend on variables, types, whatever, _not_ being
>_uninitialized._ There will always be something in there that's
>"in-range" for the type. Clearly Ada83 thought this was worth doing for
>Mike

  Actually IMHO it should be possible to initialize variables with INVALID
so that it isn't anything legal so that you know that it hasn't been
set.  I believe that Rational allows this on it's machines?

  I do this with enumerated types quite often but you can't do ti with
integers, and I have to put in the checks for the enumerated types
rather than an automatic exception like with ranges. 

--
Dana Carson
Westinghouse Electronic Systems Group  Mail Stop 1615
UUCP:carson@tron.UUCP 
     carson@tron.bwi.wec.com
     ...!uunet!tron!carson
AT&T: (301) 765-3513
WIN: 285-3513