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: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: To Initialise or not
Date: 1996/04/29
Message-ID: <dewar.830827026@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 152201386
references: <318508FE.204B@sanders.lockheed.com>
 <3184E9CE.5C7A@lmtas.lmco.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Some people say that initializing to null adds a hint to the reader that
it's an access. That seems (a) kind of redundant, since I should always use the
type of the object for such information, and (b) kind of dangerous, since
initial values for access types aren't always "null". If I use the keyword
to look for access values, I'll miss some."

I don't think that's the point at all, the point is to make it explicit
to the reader that the initial value of null is important from a semantic
point of view, rather than just an accident of the definition.