Re: Implicit initialization is EXCELLENT


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,

Relevant Pages

    ... 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 ...
    ... 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 ...
  • Re: Explorer.exe
    ... George Hester ... > I am receiving an error message that Explorer.exe will not ... > initialize and can not access my file. ...