Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: int a = a (Was: Bart's Language) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 01:32:54 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 48 Message-ID: <868qp0p0eh.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <86zfhhpl5n.fsf@linuxsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 09:32:55 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7c01e97b5d1836204810413d59dbf156"; logging-data="2981858"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX188/g1x5Cx8lgMqw83CtFK+T296x3JiN9U=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:HhRFlE9ucBDoXUPr7JUq6blIfsg= sha1:E9ZYsfHPUdrVSN3irBoMNasKGuo= Bytes: 2859 Rosario19 writes: > On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 23:52:20 -0700, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> (Kenny McCormack) writes: >> >>> David Brown wrote: >>> ... >>> >>>>> gcc won't warn until you say '-Wextra', and then only for: >>>>> >>>>> int a = a + 1; >>>> >>>> People would not normally write "int a = a;". It is used as a >>>> common idiom meaning "I know it is not clear to the compiler >>>> that the variable is always initialised before use, but /I/ >>>> know it is - so disable the use-without-initialisation warnings >>>> for this variable". So it makes perfect sense for the compiler >>>> not to warn about it! >> >> An addle-brained view. Anyone who thinks that should be forcibly >> removed from any activity involving software development. >> >>> Wouldn't it just be easier and clearer to write: int a = 0; >>> and be done with it? >> >> There are two problems: one, the semantics are different; and >> two, the impression given of the author's intent is different. >> It's kind of like saying "isn't it just easier and clearer to >> write 'red' rather than 'yellow'?" Writing 'int a = 0;' might be >> better or it might be worse, depending on one's point of view, >> but it shouldn't be considered either more clear or less clear, >> because it isn't saying the same thing. > > int a=a; > for me initialize "a" variable with a value the compiler found > right as in > > int a; > > only possibly silence compiler warning for variable not > initializated If you want to take it that way, there is nothing wrong with that. But it's a mistake to assume everyone else will also take it to mean the same thing that you do.