Jeremy Hylton writes: > The change is redundant, as several people pointed out, because the C > std requires debug to be initialized to 0. I didn't realize this. > Inadvertently, however, I made the right change. The preferred style > is to be explicit about initialization if other code depends on or > assumes that it is initialized to a particular value -- even if that > value is 0. According to the BDFL? He's told me *not* to do that if setting it to 0 (or NULL, in case of a pointer), but I guess that was several years ago now (before I went to CNRI, I think). I need to get a style guide written, I suppose! -sigh- (I agree the right thing is to use explicit initialization, and would go so far as to say to *always* use it for readability and robustness in the face of changing code.) -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at beopen.com> BeOpen PythonLabs Team Member
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4