On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 17:59 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> Warning free code is a basic precondition for robust industrial quality
> code. This as well is current scientific knowledge as the result of the
> personal experience of Hamburg-internal engineers, as well as the
> opinion of some OpenOffice.org developers like e.g. Ken Foskey.
So I would actually recommend against an all out warnings push unless
everyone is VERY clear the objective is to highlight bugs not to remove
warnings. The difference in objectives is very important.
** If in doubt leave it alone. **
I am also concerned that then process will become a template fix.
if( fp = fopen( "file", "r" )) {
can become:
if( (fp = fopen( "file", "r")) ) {
If I assign someone to clean up the error, say a junior programmer
because it is menial, and we have this code:
if( x = 4 ) {
They may very well apply the 'template' solution hiding a useful
warning.
if( (x = 4) ) {
That useful warning being removed is WORSE than the problem of many
warnings. This gets really tricky when you get into essoteric C++
warnings.
The objective of the push should be to highlight bugs by removing as
many warnings with obvious solutions as possible. If in doubt leave the
warning!
As Pavel has hinted it is possibly better to work through one warning
class at a time, eg assignment bugs. This can be discussed so that the
approach to each is correct, eg don't just bracket them.
--
Ken Foskey
OpenOffice.org developer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
