On Saturday, October 19, 2013 18:50:16 Chris wrote: > A warning would be enough. The thing is I didn't want to give it > the same name. It was meant to be the class variable but the auto > was a leftover from a test. A warning would have been nice, à la > "do you really want this?". I would have seen it immediately.
Warnings are pretty much always a bad idea IMHO. If you're being a responsible programmer, you fix all warnings, so they're ultimately not really any different from an error except that you can leave them alone temporarily while developing. It's far better to make something an error not have the compiler complain about it at all. lint-like tools can do additional analysis based on additional stuff that a programmer decides they want to look for in their code, but the compiler shouldn't be pointing out stuff that "might" be wrong, because you'll have to "fix" it whether it's wrong or not just to get the compiler to shut up about it. And Walter agrees with me on this. Pretty much the only reason that warnings even exist in dmd is because he got pestered into adding them, and even then, we don't have very many. Most of them end up being warnings about stuff that will become errors later (rather than just making them an error immediately and break code). - Jonathan M Davis
