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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.236.63.67 with SMTP id z43mr4026720yhc.11.1407152191676;
        Mon, 04 Aug 2014 04:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!v10no4281935qac.1!news-out.google.com!j6ni30349qas.0!nntp.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 06:36:31 -0500
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 07:36:32 -0400
From: Peter Chapin <PChapin@vtc.vsc.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Quick question regarding limited type return syntax
References: <166aaec5-5e9c-40e0-9b07-9b9c7d5f7f33@googlegroups.com>
 <EngCv.101926$Ji3.44609@fx16.iad>
 <16a6846f-2964-438a-ab9b-2029075f7924@googlegroups.com>
 <bf9193d6-e1a8-4df3-8e36-b07a2b07655e@googlegroups.com>
 <lret2q$fs$1@loke.gir.dk> <lrfh8k$rpi$1@dont-email.me>
 <lrgpg1$40g$1@loke.gir.dk> <D7TCv.160339$HF6.16263@fx30.iad>
 <c43h9sFgdq8U1@mid.individual.net>
 <20m59uxjlygw$.2mpabkt469vp.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wcciombyqmq.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <cp8rrf40gpmj.zx1py68uwkjl$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wccegwzyn76.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <a5pzvn575hsz.8rt38rwse8bg.dlg@40tude.net> <c450cgFq3u2U1@mid.individual.net>
 <vuqtsin4324j$.1qqhcwhbgnd21.dlg@40tude.net>
 <c491psFkt2bU1@mid.individual.net>
In-Reply-To: <c491psFkt2bU1@mid.individual.net>
Message-ID: <Mu6dnRWFyLei7ULO4p2dnAA@giganews.com>
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: 
 sv3-xNyemxItNzb5LPnOcCKU2QYJF0C96zYyrYYfEAQEwv1fCz04IRDyWBZ6e64/+JBLBKbyhlDKph0UmrR!wNuW6EQhCX8ie/EiAJDiLQUvwvZPXaogRLJd/sgH4Jb3AbmxXDctMDOUIf4RVc0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2666
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Received-Bytes: 2969
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2270693763
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:21437
Date: 2014-08-04T07:36:32-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2014-08-04 05:24, Niklas Holsti wrote:

> Moreover, I think this question of constructor/destructor control flow
> is separate from the general question of preventing access to
> uninitialized data. As I understand it, even in the languages which do
> have specific constructor/destructor facilities, there is no requirement
> or check that a constructor must initialize all the components of the
> object.

With C++ the language does not require this check but there are tools
that do it. The tools are nice because if you add a member they will
remind you to take care of it in your constructors.

The tools are not perfect. I suspect full handling of this issue may be
undecidable because the constructor can call arbitrary recursive methods
as part of it's work. So tracking precisely which members get
initialized would be quite difficult in the general case.

Peter