On Mar 05, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Joe Huber wrote:
At 11:19 AM -0700 3/5/06, Norman Palardy wrote:
With multiple projects open it's possible to want different settings
for different ones, instead of something that I want consistent from
one project to another in which case a preference makes sense.
I like Joe Strout's original suggestion to make this part of a code
analysis tool that could be run on any project when desired and when
you had the time to thoughtfully consider its output. It's just a set
of warnings that happen on every compile, then I'd likely develop the
bad habit of ignoring them. ;-)
Possible. I liked the the MW options to treat warnings like errors.
You'd have to explicitly do something as your project would not build
until you either turned off the warning, which is the current default,
or fixed the code to return a value. I generally opted to fix the code
to eliminate the warning. I almost always had MW warn on everything and
fixed the code to not produce warnings.
I'd likely do the same in RB if it did this.
A separately run code analysis tool would inform you when you wanted
it and would not bug you when you didn't.
Perhaps.
When I managed a group of programmers it became apparent that if the
capability was not right in the IDE the likelihood it got done was
diminished.
Version control of code was similar. Because it was extra steps outside
the tool people would check things out and not check them in in a
timely fashion. Profiling code was the same. Documentation was even
worse. All these were done outside the tool and so happened grudgingly.
The easier it is to do these things right in the IDE it seems the more
likely they get done.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
