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,HEADER_SPAM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b30bd69fa8f63cb2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fc772,b30bd69fa8f63cb2 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc772,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-14 09:14:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!not-for-mail From: Simon Wright Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++.moderated Subject: Re: C bug of the day Date: 14 Jun 2003 12:16:41 -0400 Organization: Pushface Sender: cppmods@netlab.cs.rpi.edu Message-ID: References: <1054751321.434656@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netlab.cs.rpi.edu X-Original-Date: 14 Jun 2003 07:16:17 +0100 X-Submission-Address: c++-submit@netlab.cs.rpi.edu X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.lang.c++.moderated iQBVAwUAPutKZUHMCo9UcraBAQFkWAIAla88CLw7yr9cEzyeI6UCmoc9iuN0ew1w D7lK2/hAKrhXW+GGBM6ajpj7gdSvYgA4dtn+0S63Bsq6/6vBJqUxgg== =28Fk Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39176 comp.lang.c++.moderated:68349 Date: 2003-06-14T12:16:41-04:00 List-Id: James Rogers writes: > For that matter, why would you ever *want* uninitialized > variables? Another way to ask that is when is initialization a bad > thing? When there is nothing you can sensibly initialize with (yet), and to supply an unnecessary initialization would prevent the compiler (or the static analyser) warning you that one of your paths doesn't initialize the variable. [ Send an empty e-mail to c++-help@netlab.cs.rpi.edu for info ] [ about comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: do this! ]