Re: float with 24-bit resolution

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca>]

Randy Brukardt wrote:

>>Matthew Heaney <matthewjheaney@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>>>   Null_Object : T := null;
>>
>>>I find the latter convention confusing, because it suggests that if
>>>the initialization part were omitted, then the object wouldn't be
>>>initialized.  But that would be incorrect.
> 
> *I* find
>      Null_Object : T;
> confusing. A maintenance programmer probably doesn't know the class of
> object that T represents, and the lack of an initialization looks like a
> bug. 

IMHO, if this is in fact a tagged "object", and it lacks
the necessary "Initialize" primitive, then you deserve
what you get. ;-) Granted, there can always be exceptions
to any rule. 8-)

Even for just record types, you can have implicit
initialization already specified for the members of
that record anyway. So you don't always want to undo
that with an explicit initialization.

So IMHO, saying that any object is better with explicit
initialization is saying that implicit initialization is
a part of the language which shouldn't be used.

Maybe, I am over reacting 8-)

> You could "fix" that with a comment, but an explicit initializer works
> just as well. 

But this also increases the maintenance cost if you change
the nature or number of members of that object. It also
creates a maintenance nightmare if the initialization
defaults are changed (in the spec) but the explicit
initialization undoes what is "correct" for it initially
(ie. the worst case is when it compiles, but fails to
work correctly because the incorrect initialization
value remains, even though the spec has been corrected).

> But I suspect being consistent is more important than any particular rule.
> 
>                    Randy.

But I guess this is what makes I.T. so interesting -- a
different set of strokes for many of us ;-)

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg