To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=96834
------- Additional comments from [email protected] Thu Apr 30 11:07:28 +0000 2009 ------- The code just looks wrong to me as it is now. I still find it ambigous though and don't really consider this "properly" fixed. if the sign is -1 you check for "foo && -n>=nMin" , then when sign is 1 you check for "bar" - but in the end you don't care, since n>nMin works as well. I have neither proof that the code is correct, nor that it is incorrect. My gut feeling is that if you do a check for "sign=-1 && a<b && -n>=nMin", then you probably also want to check for "sign=1 && a>=b && n>nMin" as well. Either (sign=-1 && foo) || (sign=+1 &&bar). and not: (sign=-1 && foo) || ( (sign=+1 && part1-of-bar) || part2-of-bar ) (Note the additional parentheses that strongly suggest another intention) And exactly that is why the compiler warning is useful, and fixing it by silencing the compiler warning without making the code clear is useless. Fixing it without adding a "//FIXME: is this correct? - issue 96834" or similar is even worse IMHO. But well, as it doesn't change behaviour it is "harmless" to have it changed, I could live with it, but please add the FIXME or other marker. The warning-inducing code makes it apparent that there might be wrong logic/not what was intended. The fix hides this error, the code looks like it was intended. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
