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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	HEADER_SPAM,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fc772,b30bd69fa8f63cb2
X-Google-Attributes: gidfc772,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b30bd69fa8f63cb2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-14 18:52:34 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!not-for-mail
From: Wesley Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++.moderated
Subject: Re: C bug of the day
Date: 14 Jun 2003 21:54:47 -0400
Organization: Ain't no organization here!
Sender: cppmods@netlab.cs.rpi.edu
Message-ID: <9PWcnbLRQfCMCHajXTWcpQ@gbronline.com>
References: <1054751321.434656@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <memo.20030605193115.9141A@brangdon.madasafish.com>
 <d6652001.0306100323.338a2a1c@posting.google.com>
 <Xns9396BDBB14558jimmaureenrogers@204.127.36.1>
 <bc8423$gt53a$1@ID-14036.news.dfncis.de>
 <Xns9397C17B49692jimmaureenrogers@204.127.36.1>
 <bc9h7j$gm42t$1@ID-14036.news.dfncis.de>
 <Xns9398BD1E07E3Ejimmaureenrogers@204.127.36.1>
 <WXiGa.11515$KF1.273500@amstwist00>
 <Fn2dnUzrDqr3YXSjXTWQlg@giganews.com>
Reply-To: wesgroleau@despammed.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: netlab.cs.rpi.edu
X-Original-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:35:23 -0500
X-Submission-Address: c++-submit@netlab.cs.rpi.edu
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.lang.c++.moderated
	iQBVAwUAPuvR40HMCo9UcraBAQHhMQIAooaXxuKqAEbQApCNa5+/BIuqcMHm/7Pr
	qQ6nngxrhMyoPfZB4W+G9eLi1/BOk/CGUaE+zSvHEiOa6XMPCOIqKQ==
	=a8CX
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39191 comp.lang.c++.moderated:68383
Date: 2003-06-14T21:54:47-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


>  > > If your suggestion was adopted, how would it affect existing
>  > > programs? For that matter, why would you ever *want*
uninitialized
>  > > variables?
>  >
>  > Reading from streams is an obvious example:
>  >
>  > int i;
>  >
>  > stream >> i;
>  >
>  > Intialising "i" beforehand would just be vasteful.

I would think even a mediocre compiler would optimize away
an obiously useless initialization.
> 
> It wouldn't break anything, just make it a tiny bit slower.   If you
allowed something to inidicate
> uninitialized, you could get the performance back.
> 
>      int i;                // initialize to 0
>      stream >> i;
> 
>      auto int i;        // recycle auto to mean uninitialized.
>      stream >> i;

Wouldn't it be better to have the old syntax do the same thing?
Also, doesn't "auto int" have a tiny hint of doing something
automatic to the int (as opposed to _not_ doing something)?


      [ Send an empty e-mail to c++-help@netlab.cs.rpi.edu for info ]
      [ about comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: do this! ]