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,c1131ea1fcd630a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: To Initialise or not
Date: 1996/05/01
Message-ID: <Dqqws5.Dvr@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 152462345
references: <318508FE.204B@sanders.lockheed.com> <Dqp3HF.12t@world.std.com>
 <Dqq1F9.CK3@thomsoft.com> <318792E8.28CC1042@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-05-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <318792E8.28CC1042@escmail.orl.mmc.com>,
Theodore E. Dennison <dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com> wrote:
>Yes, but I don't think any compiler COULD easily help enforce this (It
>sounds a lot like the halting problem to me). That is what code 
>walkthroughs are for.

A compiler can *easily* detect uninitialized variables at run time.
Yes, it's nicer to know about it at compile time, when possible, but as
you say, it's not *always* possible.  You can (and should) use code
walkthroughs to detect divide-by-zero, too.  But Ada still detects that
problem at run time (in case the code walk through missed something).

The problem with detecting uninit vars at run time is of course
efficiency.  Plus the fact that it *might* make interfacing to other
languages and/or hardware more difficult.

- Bob