From 3136862880623046362
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,e2cfdf64f67c7793
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!atl-c02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!stump.algebra.com!devnull
From: usenet-nospam@nmhq.net (Niklas Matthies)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Eliminating uninitialised variables
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:22:52 GMT
Organization: Avonlea Village Improvement Society
Lines: 37
Sender: mail2news@demon.net
Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++)
Message-ID: <slrncnoih6.478.usenet-nospam@nmhq.net>
References: <memo.20040920104138.384A@brangdon.m>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.news.demon.net
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1098728602 19492 158.152.254.254 (25 Oct 2004 18:23:22 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:23:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov)
X-User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0 (FreeBSD)
X-Orig-X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de zvVRKhqtd/pudV/0C9MROgb99uUiUYmqfXEvD9OPdr0+TLPVI=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU
X-Reply-To: usenet-reply at nmhq dot net
X-Received: (from fjh@localhost)
	by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.9/Submit) id i9PIMqFI014408;
	Tue, 26 Oct 2004 04:22:52 +1000 (EST)
X-Path: comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail
X-Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu
X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f
X-Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:3159

On 2004-09-21 05:24, Dave Harris wrote:
:
> The efficiency issue we can probably handle by providing a way to request 
> uninitialised variables explicitly. Eg reusing the keyword "void":
>     int x; // x is 0.
>     int y = void; // y is uninitialised.
>
> The important cases are arrays:
>     int array[1000] = void;
>
> especially when they are instance variables:
>
>      struct S {
>          int array[1000];
>          S() : array(void) {}
>      };
>
> I'm not wedded to this particular syntax.

I'd suggest '?' (question mark) instead of 'void'. E.g.:

   int x = ?;

   struct S
   {
      int array[1000];
      S() : array(?) { }
   };

-- Niklas Matthies

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]