begin quoting David Brown as of Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 05:29:12PM -0800:
> On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 05:11:01PM -0800, SJS wrote:
>
> >Then again, putting all the variable declarations at the top of the
> >method/function gives you much of what you want.
> >
> >function name( args ... ) {
> > LongArduousType foo;
> > . . .
> > foo = new LongArduousType(...);
>
> This is considered bad style in most modern languages.
Oh, joy.
> In fact, it is
> forbidden in some. The idea isn't to move the initialization up to the
> top, but to move the variable declaration down to where it is first
> assigned. You don't ever declare variables without giving them their
> initial value.
LongArduousType foo = null;
:)
> C# is kind of enough to consider use before initialization to be a static
> compilation error. Most other languages just consider it a warning.
Well, C# is just a Java ripoff. That's nothing new.
> I still think something like:
>
> auto foo = new LongArduousType(...);
>
> is much cleaner.
It's cleaner than never declaring foo at all, just using it. I'll go
with that. And it *seems* like it would be cleaner than always having
to declare a type even for something where you Just Don't Care.
But it also seems to open the door for auto-return-types.
auto foo( auto input ) {
auto bar = processInput( input );
...
return bar;
}
At the moment, I'm actually wondering about heading in the other
direction. What if objects _have_ a type, but do not _define_ a type?
What if, to define an type, you had to define an interface, and
variables (and parameters, and return-types) could _only_ be
interefaces?
--
There's probably a language that already does that
And then takes five files to recreate the tool 'cat'.
Stewart Stremler
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
