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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c840deaa6965e67a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-01-30 06:19:52 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!world!bobduff
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Memory overwrite?
Message-ID: <D382Au.AB7@world.std.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: <3g86nm$mj3@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <D32HMF.FM9@world.std.com>
 <3gehlo$i05@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 14:16:05 GMT
Date: 1995-01-30T14:16:05+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3gehlo$i05@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>But just the fact that you are using two different I's does not seem
>to warrant a warning to me!

This mistake is so common, I think it deserves a warning.  You've got
nothing better to do, right?  ;-)

If you have a variable that is never initialized (whether it's used or
not), and an inner for loop index of the same name, that's when I would
give a warning about not needing to declare the for loop index.  Of
course, a variable never initialized (or used) might deserve a warning
anyway, but if you just say "variable I never used", you will confuse
someone who thought you needed to declare I outside the for loop.  To
me, it seems friendy to give a more specific message in the for-loop
case.

- Bob