Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.693.1287403175.858.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
I, for one, want the compiler to tell you about things that are either
absolutely guaranteed to be a problem or things which are _highly_ likely
to be
a problem. Anything less that doesn't belong in the compiler IMHO. If it's
in
the compiler, then it's going to be bugging me every time that I compile.
There are these things called "command line options", maybe you've heard of
them?
Maybe you've not heard of what a problem they are in C++? Ever had to
turn individual warnings on and off just to get some different libraries
to compile?
The problem is, once you have an "optional warning" in a compiler, they
are NOT optional. All standard or pseudo-standard libraries MUST comply
with them.
And if you have an idiotic warning that keeps complaining about
perfectly valid code (VC++ for example has many such warnings), what
you've done is reduce the quality of everyone's code everywhere.
IMHO, it's extremely unprofessional for the compiler to cry wolf all the
time, rather than to clearly identify the symptoms of genuine bugs.
