Errors, bugs, questions - page 1926
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
if there will only be read-only operations in the future.
The compiler does not know (and should not know) what the future operations will be (otherwise the compile time would be hours instead of minutes)
The compiler gets to line 1 - it gives a warning - because it does not analyse further operations, and the <a> variable can be initialised later. And if
it would give out an error because it cannot be initialized later (and the compiler does not analyze further operations and does not know, for example, that it will not be used further at all)
Everything is logical and does not depend on subjective preferences
The compiler gets to line 1 - it gives a warning - because it does not analyse further operations, and the <a> variable can be initialised later. And if
it would generate an error because it cannot be initialized later (and the compiler does not analyze further operations and does not know, for example, that it will not be used further at all)
Everything is logical and does not depend on subjective preferences
It is illogical why you cannot use a rubbish const-variable.
It doesn't make sense why you can't use a rubbish const variable.
Provide an example of this use
can be written conventionally asGive an example of this use
pass it to a function by reference and get the value.
What does it look like in the code?
I'm actually against uninitialised variables of any kind and forbid them at compiler level, I just gave an example.
Where is const ? (or did you not read the last page?)