On Thu, May 17 2012, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
> The values are not undefined, they are properly initialized, and we can
> count on it. For sure, not maybe. If you want to explicitly set them for
> clarity, it's a matter of taste. Personally I find it too verbose, but then
> again notmuch code is generally fairly verbose.

I want them explicitly set for clarity, as well as safety.  Code is
meant to be read by humans, not computers.  Brevity is not always a
virtue if it sacrifices clarity.  It's much nicer to have the defaults
clearly stated in the initialization, than to force the reader to
understand how the initialization works and to interpret what that means
for the current case.  I also don't think it's safe to assume that the
variables will be always be "properly" initialized in your favor in
perpetuity.  It's much safer to explicitly set them to what you want
them to be rather than just assume they'll be set correctly.

> If you insist on it, please at least drop the extra temp crypto
> variable, and initialize the struct in one initializer.

I don't see why this matters either.  Again, I think this is just a
matter of taste.  I would rather the code be verbose where clarity
requires it, rather than always trying to make the code as terse as
possible.

jamie.