Re: Implicit initialization is EXCELLENT

Hello,

I agree with the contents of this post.

I see a similar problem with API's requiring to initialize all kinds of data using setters/properties instead of receiving it in the initializer (or constructor).

Python generally follows this design. Apart from files, I can't easily think
off the top of my head of any types that require a separate
open/start/activate call before they are usable.

database connections, network connections, spawning expensive processes/threads, things that benefit from lazy evaluation...

Now, I have an ulterior motive in raising this issue... I can't find the
original article I read! My google-fu has failed me (again...). I don't
suppose anyone can recognise it and can point me at it?

My sarcasm detector warns me not to add a link, although perhaps it's time for recalibration (after all, summer season started) :-)

Best regards,
Stefaan.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: INITIALIZE
    ... I know that it certainly was the INTENT that this would not cause a "run-time ... Initialize Group1 ALL to Value ... elementary data item as its receiving operand, ... INITIALIZE D99 ALL TO VALUE ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: INITIALIZE
    ... elementary data item as its receiving operand, ... sending-operands of these implicit statements are defined in general ... Initialize anItem all to value. ... INITIALIZE D99 ALL TO VALUE ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Explorer.exe
    ... George Hester ... > I am receiving an error message that Explorer.exe will not ... > initialize and can not access my file. ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.general)