On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Emil Dotchevski <emil@revergestudios.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
replace int id; if(id == original_id) ...
with special_type id(... ah think about this - this is a good thing); if(id == original_id)
Yes, we have user-defined types in the language to define custom behaviors in case the semantics of the built-in types are inadequate or incomplete. But whether such a change is a good thing can not be argued in the abstract, each case is different. I bet that sometimes the feeling of satisfaction we get when we see no warnings at all at the highest possible level gets in the way of our good judgment.
Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
I bet your right (almost certain of it in many cases, which I have seen), although logic would assume that the inference would propose never switching on the highest possible level of warnings. I know your not proposing that per se' but perhaps with boost being the closest to a c++ standards extension library in many cases, it does arguably require definitive policy on warnings (excuse my ignorance if this exists). I understand the compliers all react differently but perhaps teir 1 compilers could be considered and the policy strictly applied. Yes I realise this has gone way off topic now, so I am sorry. I think doing this also fleshes out some strange / 'unreadable for everyone' code at the same time.