On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:06:45PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote: > Eep, you are right, as usual I answered a non-existing question, but > this brings up a point. Various times I've seen people changing > "signedness" of variables, etc. in one or two places to clear up a > few warnings and I'm wondering how many times there have been ripple > effects.
This is a very important point - thanks for bringing it up. It was on my mind yesterday when submitted the patch warnings in classes/, but I should have said it more explicitly - I wasn't going to be able to fix all the warnings within 24 hours because as soon as I started seeing signed/unsigned warnings and "comparison with zero always" whatever then cleaning up would involve really understanding the code. [actually, it is a very good way to learn what the code is doing] I wouldn't consider me a hero, because all the warnings I did tidy up were simple renaming things (or at least I believe that they were, and if they weren't I didn't afford them enough attention) with the exception of the typedef for the preferef code, where I spent over an hour trying to get my head round just what it was doing before I changed only a few lines. Nicholas Clark -- ENOJOB http://www.ccl4.org/~nick/CV.html
