> Look I'm certain you mean well, but the rest of us are pretty busy using > one of the best small footprint databases on the planet. That means we > are way too busy to nit-pic a good product to pieces, just because it > won't compile clean using Mickeysoft's latest and greatest.
It's not a "nit-pic[sic]" when one's compiler (and I saw no mention of the compiler vendor in the original poster's note, but I don't have the start of the thread) issues a warning about potentially unsafe behaviour. There's a reason those warnings are issued. Such issues can cause hard to find problems in programs. Code review is a valuable tool in software development. I believe the original poster's intent was to note that if an implicit conversion is correct for that section of code, then what is the down-side of changing those to explicit casts? I'm aware that the time spent chasing them down and analyzing each one is a major task, but I get the impression that the OP doesn't feel qualified to make those changes, otherwise he would have tackled it. I believe he intended to bring the subject to the attention of DRH, in case these are actual problems, not to "whine" about the code base. > us all, and won't come off as such an irritating whiner. As opposed to...? Brad
