Gabriel Sechan wrote: >> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:00:33 -0700> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: >> [email protected]> Subject: Re: C++0X gets lambdas/closures> > >> Christopher Smith wrote:> > Yeah, 'cause we've been able to come up with a >> language where the compiler can prove that everything is correct. > > No. >> I'm simply referring to warnings that are warnings because the > compiler >> knows you did something wrong and it *will* come back to bite > you, except >> it doesn't know how you want to fix them. Like "Warning: You > have a >> virtual methods but no virtual destructor." There's an error in > your >> code: Either you shouldn't be declaring anything virtual, or you > need the >> virtual destructor to avoid corrupting memory. Why is this a > warning and >> not an error?> Because it's not necessarily an error. There are situations >> where you can have virtual functions yet not need a virtual destructor- >> whenever you have no dynamic memory in the class. Although personally I >> declare a destructor virtual for a nything I expect to have children, its never wrong to do so and can save your ass... > Another example of something that should be a warning- size and type > mismatches. A standard library function returns an unsigned value. I > compare that to a signed integer. This produces a warning. But 99% of the > time, it isn't wrong. So a warning and not an error is correct.
If 99% of the time the result is correct, does that make the code right 99% of the time? Regards, ..jim (sympathies re: hotmail) -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
