Hi David, On Fri, 20. Feb 2015 at 16:28:19 +0100, David Weiß wrote: > Thanks for the review. > I see your point, but I suggest this should rather be handled by a unit test, > a linter or -Wswitch-enum for recent compilers. > I consider switch w/o default bad practice, especially if the enum provides > kind of a default value.
How would gcc (we usually build with -Wall) or any lint (we use cppcheck and coverity) catch that there is a new input enum values to handle if there is a default case? In the current code the compiler would warn about it, while in the proposed version it wouldn't have and new enum values that might need handling might be introduced unnoticed. In what way would the latter generally be "better practice"? I also wonder how a unit test to cover this could look like. Jürgen -- Jürgen E. Fischer norBIT GmbH Tel. +49-4931-918175-31 Dipl.-Inf. (FH) Rheinstraße 13 Fax. +49-4931-918175-50 Software Engineer D-26506 Norden http://www.norbit.de QGIS release manager (PSC) Germany IRC: jef on FreeNode
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
