"so" <s...@so.do> wrote in message news:op.vltk19pq7dt...@so-pc... > On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:41:41 +0200, Nick Sabalausky <a...@a.a> wrote: > >> "so" <s...@so.do> wrote in message news:op.vls71ytk7dt...@so-pc... >>>> On a related note, I *hate* that D silently sticks in a default value >>>> whenever anything isn't properly inited. This is one thing where I >>>> really >>>> think C# got it right, and D got it wrong. And waving the "It's not >>>> leaving >>>> it with an undefined value like C does!" banner is an irritating >>>> strawman: >>>> Yea, it's better than C, but it still sucks. >>> >>> This is one of the times (and this doesn't happen rarely) i am glad >>> Walter >>> is the head of D. >>> It is total BS i am sorry can put it in a polite way. >>> >> >> How is it total BS? > > If a language is able to avoid bugs caused by uninitialized variables, it > should.
Yes, and that is *exactly* why I've been saying the compiler should *track* whether or not something has been inited and then bitch when it's used without ebing inited, instead of just blindly tossing a '0' (or null, or NaN) in there with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever as to whether or not it actually *should* be starting out at '0' (or null, or NaN). > But when it comes to a system language you have to preserve the rights of > those > that know initialization is very expensive/or just plain unnecessary at > some point, and want compiler to ignore it. > "something a = void;" is a very elegant solution, and it is explicit, you > have best of both worlds. > Uhh, yea, but what the hell does that have to do with what I said?
