Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > No, but the farther away you go from the edit-compile-run cycle, the > more painful warnings become. Catching them immediately and fully has > real value, as it means the cost of correcting them is lower. So all > things being equal, I think we should prefer universal solutions when > they're available (and for example compiler errors over say, coccinelle > or other analysis tools). Thanks for saying it so succinctly. Making compiler errors less useful only to please Coccinelle is putting our priority wrong. > Ugh. Yeah, that is really unfortunate. I much prefer the parenthesized > syntax, but if we can't find a way to unconfuse third-party parsing, > then switching is probably the least-bad solution. Or have third-party fix the parsing ;-) Until then, perhaps we have to live with a suboptimal syntax. Thanks.
