On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Wes Hardaker <
harda...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:03:06 +0200, Bart Van Assche <
> bvanass...@acm.org> said:
>
> BVA> This change is safe because this function is new and its "return
> value"
> BVA> isn't used anywhere.
>
> The safety of the change is now judged by the masses. We made this
> policy quite a while ago because of changes that got introduced that
> "looked safe" to one person (probably me; ha) but turned out not to be.
> Even safe changes need to be reviewed as we near a final release.
>
I knew about that policy and agree with it. What I had not yet mentioned
though is why I had committed this change. Before this change the code
triggered a compiler warning because a "return;" statement was present in a
function declared to return "void*". Presence of such compiler warnings in a
project can make a person who observes that the code triggers such a
compiler warning start wondering about the quality of the whole project.
Bart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by:
Show off your parallel programming skills.
Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
