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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ec21c3c7cdc7ff3e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:17:24 -0600
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <1142279908.327131.230200@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>
 <hZrRf.3235$x94.1497@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <sa4k6axpj1y.fsf@snoopy.microcomaustralia.com.au>
 <f_qSf.8758$Jz4.2940@trnddc08>
 <sa4hd5x1wgd.fsf@snoopy.microcomaustralia.com.au>
Subject: Re: private types
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:17:32 -0600
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <e_mdncFXrsg5wobZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@megapath.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38
X-Trace: 
 sv3-ifHpZkJIgUpa+tUMjgDxSwK8/IEoRaD+Jybb1ffZlVZbyi++5w+Rtk1o3co99c+vS0CeyE5Wf96wvS1!tflUUgnbH80yvU2TkqZRKcrg3r7jPNH6F/S3APtncKYgjGdZzlpn981DH8OQWHVtlpGMnCg3AuDA!6ItjPS54lvIwKQ==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net
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: 1.3.32
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3417
Date: 2006-03-17T19:17:32-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Brian May" <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au> wrote in message
news:sa4hd5x1wgd.fsf@snoopy.microcomaustralia.com.au...
...
> For testing the code, as found_it is undefined in the second test, it
> is possible it might just fluke the tests you give it and pass
> everyone.
>
> The first code is predictable though, and as long as you give it the
> same inputs, it will always produce the same outputs, making it easier
> (IMHO) to test.

It's not just testing. Ada 95 is very clear that an Ada compiler cannot
assume an object is in range unless it can prove it is initialized. Explicit
initialization makes this proof trivial (and leaving it out may make it
impossible to prove.) Thus, given
    A : Positive := 10;
    B : Positive;
the compiler can assume that A is in range, potentially being able to
eliminate checks and speeding up the code. But it cannot assume that B is in
range (unless it can prove that it is initialized further on).

So I recommend initalizing everything (or assigning it immediately after the
begin) that could be significant to performance.

                                     Randy.