On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 09:29:30AM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote: > On 12/6/2011 9:16 AM, David Brown wrote: > > >I would say it's better to have false positives in cases like this, than > >false negatives, because there are easy ways to remove the false > >positives. > > My view is that for compiler warnings, you want to balance false > positives and false negatives. If you give too many false positives > people just turn off the warning anyway. I think the current balance > is probably about right. > > If you want more thorough warnings, with no false negatives, then > separate static analysis tools are more appropriate. They can do a > better job than the compiler in any case.
I'm generally not happy with my code unless I clear all the warnings. Ruben -- http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Interesting Stuff http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://fairuse.nylxs.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 "Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME" "The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the ability to participate in our own society." "> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the job, politics be damned.< You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and technology have been attached at the hip since the 1st dynasty in Ancient Egypt. I guess you missed that one." © Copyright for the Digital Millennium
