This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: RFC: -Wall by default


On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 22:36, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2012 16:47, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>>
>>>> I keep talking about useful *warnings*, you keep talking about *numbers*.
>>> ?No you don't. ?You said:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually
>>>>>>>>>> the greater the better or in this case the worse) which
>>>>>>>>>> creates another set of confusion.
>>> ?That is talking about numbers.
>>
>> And you were complaining about your comments being taken out of context?
>
> ?Yes, I am, because that statement of your above _was_ the context for the
> whole rest of the discussion.

No, that is not correct.

>?You were interrupting in between me saying "The
> situation is X" and my next sentence where I continued "Because of Y". ?*You*
> were the one who said that the numbers were a problem because people would
> expect some kind of monotonic increase in warnings related to the numbers, I
> was the one who pointed out that the suggestion originally offered exactly
> matched that situation.
>
> ?Seriously, if you think something like this:
>
>>> ?Your argument makes no sense.
>>
>> Do you think that assertion makes sens when no evidence is
>> provided to support it?
>>
>>> > You said that there was a problem because
>>> > people will expect numbered -W options to be ordinal.
>
> ... is anything other than a pedantic interruption in the middle of a coherent
> argument, you have a communication problem. ?The basic unit of meaning in
> English is the paragraph, you can't take part of it alone and expect it to
> make sense out of context, but if you're going to accuse me of doing the same,
> well, here's your entire original paragraph:
>
>> People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually
>> the greater the better or in this case the worse) which
>> creates another set of confusion. ?Geodelization is great
>> for machines, hardly so as human interface.
>
> ?There was only one extra sentence in it in the first place, and that other
> sentence doesn't relate to the first sentence in any way,  so I did *not* take
> your idea out of any kind of context that could in any way have contributed to
>  its coherency.

Not just because you wanted to make it sound as if it did not
have any relation -- so that you can embark on your rhetoric --
means there was no relation.  If you want to talk about pedantic
interruption, why don't you start with what you see in the mirror?

> ?So let's get this silly subthread back on track;

I do not believe you missed any effort to get credit here.

> here's the
> summary of where we're at, with all the sidetracks taken out:
>
>>>> > -W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w)
>>>> > -W1: default
>>>> > -W2: equivalent to the current -Wall
>>>> > -W3: equivalent to the current -Wall -Wextra
>>>
>>> ? I like this suggestion a lot.
>>
>> People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually
>> the greater the better or in this case the worse) which
>> creates another set of confusion.
>
> ?My response to that is that is not a "set of confusion", because there is
> indeed an ordering to the numbers, with zero being less warnings and 3 being
> most warnings, and therefore it is not a source of confusion but actually a
> source of correct knowledge about what the situation actually would be, and
> therefore that using -W<number> in that way would be a good idea. ?Now, I
> admit that I have assumed you meant "source of confusion" rather than "set of
> confusion", since the latter phrase means nothing in English, so if that's
> where our misunderstanding has arisen, and you meant something other, then
> please speak up now and make it clear what you actually meant to convey.
>
> ? ?cheers,
> ? ? ?DaveK
>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]