Re: formats and syslog question

[Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot OZ dot AU>]

On 14-Sep-2002, Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> wrote:
> > > For most users, the use of -pedantic is fairly exotic -
> > 
> > If that is the case, it is a pity.
> > We should not do anything to encourage that state of affairs.
> 
> 
> Well of course the name "pedantic" quite deliberately expresses the opposite
> viewpoint. In the case of GNAT, you get strictly the standard language (with
> allowable pragma/attribute extensions), and if you want real language
> extensions you have to use an option -gnatX.

Same is true for C++, where -pedantic-errors is the default,
and you need -fpermissive to disable it.

> But for C, the general philosophy of GCC has been to encourage the use of
> GNU C extensions, and there is probably no point in rediscussing that
> viewpoint since nothing has really changed.

I'm not trying to argue that `-pedantic' be renamed, or that it be
made the default for C.  Those arguments have already been made and
lost, and it is not (yet ;-) time to re-open that debate.

But I do object to people arguing that we should not mind if `-pedantic'
results in spurious warnings for Posix programs, because `-pedantic'
is "exotic"!

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.