2011/12/21 David Brown <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > I think our key difference of opinion here is that you want a warning only > when it is quite clear that "something dodgy" is happening - I want the > warning unless it is quite clear that something dodgy is /not/ happening. Er, well feel free to turn on the warning for code you write... But the _default_ settings (and what's included in "catch-all" options like -Wall) are something altogether different. They are a balancing act, and must take into account many different programming styles, and avoid excessive false positives[1], which are quite annoying, especially when there isn't a clear alternative to what's being warned about[2]. False negatives are less of an issue, as typically "something is better than nothing"... [1] Yes, in this case, a warning about a valid comparison _is_ a false positive; the warning says "this is unsafe" for a comparison that is safe [2] E.g., "if (x = ...)" can be trivially rewritten as "x = ..; if (x)", and doing so generally improves code readability without any runtime penalty; however this isn't true for all constructs -miles -- Cat is power. Cat is peace.
