"Don" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:i9ic4k$eh...@digitalmars.com... > 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.
See my earlier post on warning levels. There's no reason for library compliance, even on a std lib, to be mandatory on "B" and "C" types. And std lib compliance on "A" types isn't problematic.
