Re: [lmi] more questions due to MSVC warnings

[Greg Chicares]

On 2008-03-25 00:13Z, Greg Chicares wrote:
> 
> There are probably some places in ancient code where I left a
> local variable uninitialized, precisely in order to avoid a bogus
> borland warning about an unused initial value; now I would call
> that a bad workaround for a warning that would better have been
> suppressed. At the moment I can't think of a case where it would
> be preferable not to initialize a local at point of declaration.

Consider this code in 'test_main.cpp':

    int result;
// GWC suppressed this because the borland compiler correcly warns
// that the initializing value is unused.
//    int result = 0;               // quiet compiler warnings

    try
        {
        result = test_main( argc, argv );

Would you leave that alone, or revert the change flagged with my
initials and zero-initialize the variable explicitly? Probably we
don't care much about this particular snippet, but I'm trying to
formulate a general guideline that we can always follow without
ever thinking about it again.

The original line, including its comment:
//    int result = 0;               // quiet compiler warnings
was written by Beman Dawes, who would have had a good reason for
writing it that way.

[Looks like I didn't write "correctly" correctly.]