On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:52 AM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 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]> 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. +1 - Fariborz > > - Doug >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
