another effc++ spurious warning?

[Giovanni Bajo]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> Those rules were designed for fairly old-fashioned code that
> mostly look like C code, i.e. verbose and a pain to evolve.
> As you pointed out, they don't make much sense for modern
> C++.  I would suggest to just remove that check.

Well, you would suggest to remove -Weffc++ altogether (and I even might agree,
but still). I think it still have its uses for certain kind of code, and for
beginners. In that case, we still want this check. I don't think it makes sense
to disable a single warning of -Weffc++ unless it's proven totally useless.

I think you will easily agree that, for *that* kind of code, checking the
return type of operator++(int) is useful. So I am opposed to its removal unless
we can't find a way to compile v3 cleanly with it.

Giovanni Bajo