> 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. Fred: > 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). Can't remember that now. I told Jeremy what he wrote here. > I need to get a style guide written, I suppose! -sigh- Yes! > (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.) No -- initializing variables that are assigned to first thing later is less readable. The presence or absence of the initialization should be a subtle hint on whether the initial value is used. If the code changes, change the initialization. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.pythonlabs.com/~guido/)
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