On 07/23/2013 08:05 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 July 2013 at 03:14:17 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>> 1) There shouldn't be warnings at all; what we call warnings should be
>> errors.
>>
>> I agree with that completely.
>
> Not really. At least my (and, as far as I understand, Jonathan) point of
> view is that warnings should be either error or subject to static
> analysis tools. Simply making all warnings errors makes them unusable as
> they may prohibit some pretty legitimate code patterns (though rarely
> legitimate).
From my C and C++ experience, I am under the impression that warnings
can be eliminated by changing code while maintaining the same behavior.
> There should not be a warning that can change language semantics
depending
> on compiler flag.
I see compiler flags as parts of the environment just like the
architecture of the cpu, string imports, floating point precision, and
anything else that can be checked during compilation time...
Thank you, I finally understand: The view is, warnings should not make
any difference in compilation; the programmers can read the compiler
output and act accordingly if they so wish.
Ali
