220 11481 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nevin Liber Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Controversy and debate: Uninitialized variables by default is a bug Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 17:58:12 +0200 Lines: 68 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <60caa4ef-b32d-40fe-97b6-8918fbb2bd51@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135f0fc66d58d04fc0a3830 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1403020742 7300 80.91.229.3 (17 Jun 2014 15:59:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:59:02 +0000 (UTC) To: "std-proposals@isocpp.org" Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCE35H5S6IDBBPOLQGOQKGQEJ7IAOMA@isocpp.org Tue Jun 17 17:58:55 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-lb0-f199.google.com ([209.85.217.199]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Wwvmh-0000u2-A9 for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 17:58:55 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-lb0-f199.google.com with SMTP id l4sf4608876lbv.10 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:58:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=mFFMmvO6RlNX7eNLaWrRGgdPc1j21EU7vje69uYormU=; b=EmYigTjnGYJTnn7hs+P2KYaxS/2GVmOZKjWn/rqq4Cm3R8zmGLtuUjZ4Ade7VBI+oC kICe2wu2Zb4sIxoMY6Wag+yTyGkRq6hLCsjU3u/bHUHFLz3KanI+Epts8v35hHe45sGC AvbLeUF5SRwoT5RbYZFYH2haPNS8lJXEaVbUZ/Z39Gp7ZxwXf/+TLmduKHRCqJZRRiEG jCEGUDIo7Q6XRU9GVzsnUEZxnUG9126ktiYKb8JiJ9yjVBs4BkEEGAxECkpmMAyb3/DD oDUI0f1vRckS/1XdAplBwul+jJzInPHlNhr6jc/lJuSQkY5Rc8FKVgFWYqTb/MGjKa5p ztng== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnpR2Dti0LoITaikKwzLPpQC6kOwHfUtuOyDWMsyGMmvm9ei8ibf4CqKhPh5HLz7p702r3j X-Received: by 10.112.40.1 with SMTP id t1mr105505lbk.19.1403020734974; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:58:54 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.180.95.194 with SMTP id dm2ls265256wib.53.gmail; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:58:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.71.81 with SMTP id s17mr40296326wju.10.1403020733461; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-we0-x234.google.com (mail-we0-x234.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c03::234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vn7si7149446wjc.45.2014.06.17.08.58.53 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of nliber@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::234; Original-Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id x48so7424663wes.39 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:58:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.39.66 with SMTP id n2mr37875426wik.17.1403020732976; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:58:52 -0700 (PDT) Original-Sender: nliber@gmail.com Original-Received: by 10.194.122.71 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:58:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <60caa4ef-b32d-40fe-97b6-8918fbb2bd51@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: nevin@eviloverlord.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of nliber@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=nliber@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:11481 Archived-At: --001a1135f0fc66d58d04fc0a3830 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 17 June 2014 17:49, Matthew Fioravante wrote: > Please now, convince if you can why this is a bad idea. > Because IMO the correct answer is that the default should be for requiring users to explicitly initialize the variable, and have a way to mark it the few times they want an uninitialized variable. All initializing to zero does is move the problem from something that static analyzers can catch to something they can't. Plus, that ship has sailed with C a long, long time ago... -- Nevin ":-)" Liber (847) 691-1404 -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. --001a1135f0fc66d58d04fc0a3830 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 17 June 2014 17:49, Matthew = Fioravante <fmatthew5876@gmail.com> wrote:
Please now, convince if you= can why this is a bad idea.

Because = IMO the correct answer is that the default should be for requiring users to= explicitly initialize the variable, and have a way to mark it the few time= s they want an uninitialized variable. =C2=A0All initializing to zero does = is move the problem from something that static analyzers can catch to somet= hing they can't.

Plus, that ship has sailed with C a long, long time ago= ....
--=C2=A0
=C2=A0Nevin ":-)" Liber=C2=A0 &= lt;mailto:nevin= @eviloverlord.com>=C2=A0 (847) 691-1404

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposa= ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<= /a>.
--001a1135f0fc66d58d04fc0a3830-- .