> On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:51 AM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:24 AM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> I’d feel a lot better if some part of the warning could be on by default.
>> For example, if you’ve uttered “override” at least once in a class, it makes
>> sense to warn-by-default about any other overrides in that class that
>> weren’t marked as “override”, because you’re being locally inconsistent. Or
>> maybe you can expand that heuristic out to a file-level granularity (which
>> matches better for the null point constant warning) and still be
>> on-by-default.
>
> This seems like a great idea to me!
> For the 'override' I much prefer if it is class specific to make it less of a
> burden as an “always on” warning. We could have the checking done at the end
> of the class definition.
>
Right. Doing it at the end of the class is rather easy and should be fairly
cheap.
- Doug
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
