> On 17 Oct 2014, at 10:15, Christian Kandeler <christian.kande...@digia.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/17/2014 08:48 AM, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
>> As we are developing for aerospace, avionics, defence and healthcare, we are
>> confronted on a daily basis with a lot of very stringent rules that we have
>> to comply with (irrespective if some people might find these rules outdated,
>> stupid, ridiculous or not). That's why we always compile with as much
>> compiler warnings as possible. Our code must be audited by an external
>> office anyways, so we better make sure we can avoid a bad report as soon as
>> possible.
>> Some examples of 'stupid' rules (which after second consideration aren't
>> that stupid after all):
>> - a switch statement must always have a default statement (also all cases
>> must be handled)
>
> Doesn't this actually make the code *worse* when using enums? Adding a
> default statement when you handle all possible values will inhibit
> genuine compiler warnings when you forget to add a case for a newly
> added enum value. In fact, this is almost guaranteed to happen in a
> non-trivial project, so this rule seems almost absurdly wrong to me.
Regulations are usually not an example of common sense :-) Maybe version
2020-TR/A-99576-37A-ammendment37bis will remove this :-) Sigggh
>
>
> Christian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
