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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Thread: 101deb,15c6ed4b761968e6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1094ba,gid101deb,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!lon-transit.news.telstra.net!lon-in.news.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!news-server.bigpond.net.au!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "robin" <robin_v@bigpond.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1
References: <mubcg.13522$fb2.853@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
 <epcs4e.qb8.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <tHkcg.6937$kR6.484@trnddc05>
 <0ugu4e.4i7.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <PkHcg.90575$Fs1.7198@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <To_cg.10095$S7.4017@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <%P_cg.155733$eR6.26337@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <6H9dg.10258$S7.9150@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <XVadg.76594$_S7.45873@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
 <1hfv5wb.1x4ab1tbdzk7eN%nospam@see.signature>
 <pan.2006.05.25.12.11.52.919554@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <2006052509454116807-gsande@worldnetattnet>
 <R%dsg.63336$fb2.7555@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
 <bFesg.111860$mF2.27790@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <1kzktalo9krea$.z8n9wev45xct$.dlg@40tude.net>
Subject: Re: Ada vs Fortran for scientific applications
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Message-ID: <z9Dsg.2740$tE5.2374@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:29:03 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.54.237.115
X-Complaints-To: abuse@bigpond.net.au
X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1152581343 203.54.237.115 (Tue,
 11 Jul 2006 11:29:03 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:29:03 EST
Organization: BigPond Internet Services
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5601 comp.lang.fortran:11919
 comp.lang.pl1:1971
Date: 2006-07-11T01:29:03+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote in message <1kzktalo9krea$.z8n9wev45xct$.dlg@40tude.net>...
>On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:36:07 GMT, James Giles wrote:
>
>> In most Ada implementations, as for most other languages, all
>> the bit patterns in the representation of an INTEGER data type
>> are valid integer values.  There is no bit pattern representing
>> NOI (Not An Integer) corresponding to the IEEE float idea of
>> a NAN.  Determining whether a variable is defined or not is a
>> complex problem.  It's made worse by the fact that the user can
>> make the error message go away (though not usually the problem)
>> by initializing the variable in the declaration.
>
>Yes, unfortunately this is one case, where Ada's default is not safe. A
>better design would be to require explicit initialization for all variables
>of types with assignment. If the programmer wanted to leave something
>uninitialized, he should do it explicitly:

Compilers can check for uninitialized variables during compilation.

    Some Fortran compilers do, including Salford (from
FORTRAN 77 days to the present).