This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: const warning...
- From: "Michael N. Moran" <mnmoran at bellsouth dot net>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 08:40:22 -0400
- Subject: Re: const warning...
- References: <20030705123120.5769EF2DE1@nile.gnat.com>
Robert Dewar wrote:
If you are arguing that there is a fundamental and important difference
between these two code snippets, then I would beg to differ.
Fine, no problem in differing, you don't have to beg for it, but I definitely
think there is a fundamental and important difference. Remember that the
request here is for an optional warning, presumably not on by default.
So the burden of proof on your side is to argue that it is unreasonable
for *anyone* to want such a feature. I certainly am not saying that
everyone should be forced to program in the style that this warning
would imply, but I think it is definitely a useful option for those
of us who think the other way from you :-)
Would this optional warning be turned on with -Wall ?
If so, it would have a big impact on those of us who
use -Wall -Werror .
--
Michael N. Moran (h) 770 516 7918
5009 Old Field Ct. (c) 678 521 5460
Kennesaw, GA 30144
"... abstractions save us time working, but they don't
save us time learning."
Joel Spolsky, The Law of Leaky Abstractions
The Beatles were wrong: 1 & 1 & 1 is 1