220 11513 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lawrence Crowl Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Controversy and debate: Uninitialized variables by default is a bug Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:39:39 -0700 Lines: 26 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <60caa4ef-b32d-40fe-97b6-8918fbb2bd51@isocpp.org> <349eba3f-0165-477b-bb4a-9aa5fc685af3@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1403123992 6403 80.91.229.3 (18 Jun 2014 20:39:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 20:39:52 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC2NJ44B2QNBBDHSQ6OQKGQEISU3M3Y@isocpp.org Wed Jun 18 22:39:45 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-we0-f198.google.com ([74.125.82.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WxMdx-0001xh-RK for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 22:39:41 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-we0-f198.google.com with SMTP id x48sf934272wes.1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:39:41 -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:date :message-id:subject:from: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=ZQi4o3Rp5Ro1t0CiUH+VQGCAepUhU9B9AVsm/i+F1dY=; b=dpGdtlfwATFfxtzmj33tnkWzR3nCn6dnrr05PnFwStdIZZpQ1GRweLk4fsdAh/38b9 1jMoOSo5Fwoh8NjsPQvV/aofojKa9oq4iGXmoMh5n1fxd3xdzVO0dvdYOWOhNaGuiwDy gQmuO7sWh2MxsVeBul648jErvxDQo+OMLCVG5GW22NE5S8r6tN/2Hcq1gLtFCnyR7CIb CcROW5wbpr0X9UqaNlQZFo4+wMm7ZTjsuW0CMM85zo+NphbuFd2ZFl4yAFyYh4kmuk02 +L9+8QdUbHTp3r3VXzvXCQQPOY8GhE/ttxq45L789tMzcSAf5Y/F9okg6ONDjZbSBfPD 5kDA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkF/JBeulPI0GGzZ5uyWCqdi/YCDThZVZgkV74SwaUOviK7Wg1+cFqvCQzeCwsLjAAnW00Z X-Received: by 10.194.243.35 with SMTP id wv3mr8898wjc.7.1403123981437; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:39:41 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.180.86.7 with SMTP id l7ls118770wiz.10.gmail; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:39:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.13.47 with SMTP id e15mr653874wic.28.1403123980242; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com (mail-wi0-x229.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ej2si10528150wib.24.2014.06.18.13.39.40 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lawrence.crowl@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::229; Original-Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hi2so9142768wib.4 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:39:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.83.225 with SMTP id t1mr655973wiy.28.1403123980136; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Original-Sender: lawrence.crowl@gmail.com Original-Received: by 10.194.56.201 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:39:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <349eba3f-0165-477b-bb4a-9aa5fc685af3@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: lawrence@crowl.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lawrence.crowl@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::229 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lawrence.crowl@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:11513 Archived-At: On 6/17/14, Stack Machine wrote: > I think that both sides have some compelling arguments. How about > this: > int i; // compiletime error: no initializer > int i = 0; // initialize to 0 > int i = void; // ok, explicitly uninitialized > Yes, this does break backwards compatibility, but in a way that > produces a compiletime error. Conversion tools shouldn't be too > hard to write either. Alas, things are not quite so simple. In C, "int i;" at global scope is a tentative definition. That is, it is a definition only in the absence of a stronger definition. Constructs like this may still appear in systems headers. -- Lawrence Crowl -- --- 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/. .