Re: RFC: Named warnings

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) writes:

[...]

| > Named warnins has the advantages to be more self-descriptive than
| > numbers.   Computers are very good at that.  I fear only a very
| > limited number of humans are equally good at that.
| 
| Well, all the programs I remember using that had named messages with  
| (relatively) short alphanumeric labels - *all* of them - used only or  
| mainly numbers (often with a short letter pre- and/or postfix to indicate  
| product and severity). Of course, there was still the usual text in those  
| messages, too.

Well, I just go take the first program someone sent me (constructing
surfaces with varoous geometrical properties) and got all sorts fo
#pragma xxxx springled all over th files with things like 

   #if defined(__sgi) && !defined(__GNUG__)
   #pragma set woff 1209
   #endif

the pragma number varies from one point to the other.  That does not
tell anything about the supposed effect.  On the contrary, a named
warning might be more descriptive.  The above isn't a "feature" I would
like GCC to replicate.

And if the numbers would have to be accompanied with text, then it is
far better to put the next in the pragma in the first place.

[...]


| Remember, this is the way errno works (except the master list is usually  

But, I didn't say I find the way errno works really an examplar
that should be replicated.

-- Gaby