Allow me to throw another log on the fire:
my $x;
if (something)
{
$x = 1;
}
my $y = $x;
This would give a compile-time warning under your RFC, warning the
user of a possibly uninitialized $x. Okay. Next:
my $x;
if (something)
{
$x = 1;
}
else
{
$x = 2;
}
my $y = $x;
Would this give the same warning? Would it notice that $x is set
in both branches of the condition?
Worse:
my $x;
if (something)
{
$x = 1;
}
if (!something)
{
$x = 2;
}
my $y = $x;
I presume this would generate a warning under your RFC, right?
Since I would guess the compiler shouldn't be required to notice
that one condition is the inverse of the other?
I'm not sure I like the above construct not behaving identically
to the second case (if...else...) above...
Moving on:
my $x;
if (thing1)
{
$x = 1;
}
elsif (thing2)
{
$x = 2;
}
elsif (thing3)
{
$x = 3;
}
else
{
$x = 4;
}
my $y = $x;
Warnings, or no?
How about:
my ($x, $i);
for ($i=0; $i<10; $i++)
{
$x .= $i;
}
my $y = $x;
Now, I can look at that and see that $x will be '0123456789', but
the compiler can't be expected (imho) to know whether the loop
condition will ever execute, so under your RFC it will generate a
"possibly uninitialized" warning, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Roode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] print scalar reverse sort
Senior Software Engineer 'tona ', 'reh', 'ekca', 'lre',
Myxa Corporation '.r', 'h ', 'uj', 'p ', 'ts';
