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,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	HEADER_SPAM 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: 2003-06-13 01:14:04 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!not-for-mail
From: James Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@att.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++.moderated
Subject: Re: C bug of the day
Date: 13 Jun 2003 04:16:18 -0400
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Sender: cppmods@netlab.cs.rpi.edu
Message-ID: <Xns9398BD1E07E3Ejimmaureenrogers@204.127.36.1>
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>
NNTP-Posting-Host: netlab.cs.rpi.edu
X-Original-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:39:03 GMT
X-Submission-Address: c++-submit@netlab.cs.rpi.edu
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.lang.c++.moderated
	iQBVAwUAPumITkHMCo9UcraBAQGuOwH/TXwKohqaop1vdiw6GfWHwlnecktZEHp3
	meoFfh+m2dE6sbsrnw0U2BMqYkL0KyZ4cn7oBmRl0LBZtbSlrQqI4w==
	=cKZH
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39087 comp.lang.c++.moderated:68267
Date: 2003-06-13T04:16:18-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail@moderncppdesign.com> wrote in
news:bc9h7j$gm42t$1@ID-14036.news.dfncis.de:

 > I was mentioning that just to mention a simple language design decision
 > that's a no-brainer to implement, yet which imho has a great impact
 > because
 > of the psychological issue you mentioned. The others are also important,
 > but
 > not as trivial to implement and support without making performance
 > tradeoffs.

I am sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you were being sarcastic.
If your suggestion was adopted, how would it affect existing
programs? For that matter, why would you ever *want* uninitialized
variables? Another way to ask that is when is initialization a bad
thing?

Jim Rogers

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