On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:10:58 -0400, bearophile <[email protected]>
wrote:
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.
What I'm saying is, if the compiler errors out when a good percentage of
the cases are valid, it will become a nuisance error, and continually
ignored/worked around. We do not want nuisance errors. Even if you make
it a error only with -w, I think people will just stop using -w. It needs
to be:
a) almost always an error when it is encountered
b) very easily worked around, but with code that isn't common.
I think with the extra parentheses idea, b is satisfied, but a is not. I
can't say that there isn't a case where a is not satisfied by some
specific criteria, but I haven't seen it yet.
-Steve
