Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Even forcing an explicit initializer doesn't actually solve the
problem - my experience with such features is programmers simply
insert any old value to get the code to pass the compiler, even
programmers who know it's a bad idea do it anyway.
I think you're starting to be wrong at the point where you don't
realize that many bugs come from references that people have forgotten
to initialize. Once you acknowledge those, you will start to realize
that a reference that must compulsively be initialized is valuable.
The problem is it's worse to force people to provide an initializer.
You're not forcing. You just change the default. Really, it's *exactly*
the same deal as with = void that you're so happy about.
Andrei
