Hi Stephan, >>So, it seems that we have used the wrong operator here. Therefor I tend >>to agree to Frank, that we may want to fix this. > > The choice of operator is indeed unfortunate. However, I do not agree that > > - T b; > + T b = T(); > > is in general a fix that improves code quality.
Don't know which Ts are affected, but the original example was about sal_Bool, and - sal_Bool b; + sal_Bool b( sal_False ); seems legitimate to me. Besides that: Sure, not every change we did during the warning-freeness ride does directly improve code quality. But this is not the point - it's getting the code to compile without warning :) There will probably always be warnings which are wrong. Remember for instance MSVC's Foo* pFoo = ...; pFoo->doSomething(); which sometimes yields the wrong "pFoo might be used without being initialized" (or so) warning. In those cases, we simply need to workaround the compiler bug/limitation here. Of course, if there are other alternatives (other than disabling the respective warning completely), then that's fine, too. However, none springs to my mind ... Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Database http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
