Steven Schveighoffer: > In order to have a fix for something like this, you need the error to be > near 100% invalid. Like nobody ever writes this as *valid* code: > > if(cond); > > no matter what cond is.
My enhancement request was about redundancies in the code, that sometimes hide implicit errors, they can't be 'near 100% invalid'. In this case I am not looking for explicit errors, some/many of the redundancies aren't bugs. Bye, bearophile
