On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:23:31 -0500, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote:
It's the false negatives that are worrisome. For example:
const char * x = "//foo"; int x = min(10,20);
Not that I think anyone would write such code. But strange things do happen :-)
Yep.
In short we wanted them to be just more accurate than they are(n't) now.
OK. So you're saying we can make the comments conform to something the inspection program will understand?
I was basically thinking out loud, trying to find a solution. I considered implementing <boostinspect:nominmax>, </boostinspect:nominmax> for instance. But I find it a bit "heavy". Perhaps we can ask developers to write "Min" in comments, with an uppercase 'm'...
[...] I guess you would have to be extremely careful, and especially limiting, with the regex to have some degree of confidence false negatives don't occur.
Yes, that's true, though the current implementation isn't free from problems in that regard. #define BOOST_MY_LIB_SMALLEST min BOOST_MY_LIB_SMALLEST(x, y) // no problem detected here
PS: did you read my suggestion about commit triggers?
I don't remember reading it. But I do remember that was suggested some time ago regarding inspection. I think I mentioned some problems with that back then ;-)
Hmm... I'll search in the mailing list archives :-) -- [ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]