From 6380046998535879356 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!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.speakeasy.net!news.speakeasy.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:00:05 -0500 Return-Path: X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:55:38 GMT Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu Reply-To: "Stephen Howe" From: "Stephen Howe" Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ References: Subject: Re: Eliminating uninitialised variables X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Message-ID: <41573b0a$0$29917$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on manifold.algebra.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=3.0 tests=PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.64 * 0.8 PRIORITY_NO_NAME Message has priority setting, but no X-Mailer Lines: 24 NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.81.147.48 X-Trace: sv3-pf42hynqPj3HwQagCVQdaIrA4Mgrk63EX7hqtZ1D/BruOLN8pmxJ3msSKdsCiF7JsRXLcNXVJ6D8KWo!Dr+vi0T9mc1PLqia2dTWpL8bUadOJS9eltIe4iwexciFkfuom45/fWCy+QLXGWhm13EWIfv/zaRX!AFSyn3VqfHq+kZeB/K+XHyByq8JDWw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.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: 1.3.13 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:2885 > We can't require the compiler to reject (at compile time) accesses of > uninitialised variables without breaking existing code, so I think we > would instead have to require all variables to be initialised - > zero-initialised as if they were statics. And does zero-initialising mean that the program is correct or will behave more correctly? No. I don't see that this gains anything. I have to say in the past 5 years, I have not been bitten once by "uninitialised variables". It is not a signicant problem to me. Stephen Howe --- [ 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 ]