About adoption of diagnostic messages on non-explicit initialisationof POD types in the C++ standard

[Ioannis Vranos]

I think this one should be discussed in its own thread:


What argument can be against getting diagnostic messages (e.g. warnings) for non-explicit initialisation of
all POD types in all situations, being adopted in the C++ standard, when there is no explicit initialisation
provided by the programmer?


Also consider the recommendation of one programmer who in another thread suggested the following type of
explicit non-initialisation, when we do not want explicit initialisation:


int x= void; // Explicit non-initialisation. No implementation diagnostics here.



--
Ioannis A. Vranos

C95 / C++03 Developer

http://www.cpp-software.net

 

[joshuamaurice]

I think this one should be discussed in its own thread:

What argument can be against getting diagnostic messages (e.g. warnings) for non-explicit initialisation of
all POD types in all situations, being adopted in the C++ standard, when there is no explicit initialisation
provided by the programmer?

Also consider the recommendation of one programmer who in another thread suggested the following type of
explicit non-initialisation, when we do not want explicit initialisation:

int x= void; // Explicit non-initialisation. No implementation diagnostics here.

This is like the third thread on this topic in the last 2 days. Could
you post in one of those, or at least make this the last?

 

[Ian Collins]

I think this one should be discussed in its own thread:

If it does, it belongs on comp.std.c++, not here.