<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > initializers also force you to declare variables in the scope where they > are needed. Instead of declaring every variable at the start of the > function, it's better to declare them as nested as practical (not as > nested as possible, but as nested as practical). I agree that in many places it'd be better style to declare variables in smaller scopes ... but that's not the point you started the thread with. In any case, the initializer-vs-assignment decision is the same no matter what scope you're talking about --- I don't see how that "forces" you to do it either way.
Right - I should have said that proper initialization encourages you to declare variables in nested scopes (proper meaning that the initializer puts a meaningful value into the variable, not just a default NULL or 0) - if the initializer depends on a computed value, you can't initialize until that value has been computed.
I guess the two issues are not all that related - you can initialize without nesting (in many cases) and you can nest without initializing. They are both readability and maintainability issues to me.
Thanks for the feedback.
-- Korry
