From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-06 22:55:21
----- Original Message -----
From: "rwgk" <rwgk_at_[hidden]>
> --- In boost_at_y..., Howard Hinnant <hinnant_at_t...> wrote:
> > I can sympathize with that gripe. I'm sure I'll draw heat for this
> > remark but it boils down to the decision that double() means zero
> > initialize instead of uninitialized. Imho that one was big a
> > and I see no way of backing out of it completely.
> I could not agree more. As it stands, because of problems like
> that, doing numerics with C++ feels like being imprisoned on
> Alcatraz, in a cell with a direct view of the San Francisco
> skyline. The good life is so close, but how can I get there?
I disagree. Not that there isn't a problem, but I think you've
misperceived its nature. The built-ins are not the problem: we have a
way to create an uinitialized built-in, but I believe that
quite nicely why double() /must/ initialize its result.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk