On 04/20/2012 12:07 PM, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2012 at 09:55:04 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
It's funny, I once argued strongly in favor of this *against* Walter.
I lost
of course ;) IIRC, his argument was that it would require perfect flow
analysis and that's too difficult and expensive.
My argument was that it
didn't need to be, and perhaps even *shouldn't* be, perfect. He felt that
would end up being a PITA with false errors, and I felt that C#
demonstrates
it isn't a PITA. Meh, I don't want to re-debate it though.
Yeah, I am aware of Walter's previous statements on this. I think it's
ridiculous that he wants his language inferior to virtually every one of
its modern contemporaries in this aspect based on implementation issues.
Why do you think it is an implementation issue? D already requires an
implementation to have flow-analysis.
I like D's well-defined default-initialization and I think it's great
for global storage, TLS and class/struct fields, but I think local
variables require a hybrid approach. It doesn't matter if the
implementation isn't perfect;
It certainly does. Compiler errors for non-issues hamper productivity
and are good for nothing.
it's better than the alternative, which is
our current abysmal situation.
'abysmal'? Seriously? This could go either way, and personally, I like
the current way better.
Maybe the implementation could be non-conservative: The warning would
pop up only if it can be proven by flow-analysis that a local variable
is accessed without preceding explicit initialisation. Anyway, why would
this be such a huge deal?
