On Sat, 2005-05-14 at 13:46 +0200, Guillaume Laurent wrote: > On Saturday 14 May 2005 11:54, Chris Cannam wrote: > > > > See what others have to say on that now, but I'm sure we can happily > > take the C++ fixes (I particularly like the one to > > rosegardencanvasview). > > I'm fine with most of it, and at this point I'm not sure keeping > compatibility > with 3.1 is worth the hassle. > > The only thing I don't like is completely removing names of unused variables > in prototypes like this : > > -Composition::dump(std::ostream& out, bool full) const > +Composition::dump(std::ostream& out, bool) const > > the name of the variable does convey useful information, so to avoid the > warning you should just comment it out.
Sure. Another way is to put the name of the variable in the comment above the function declaration stating its unused and what purpose it will serve if it is used. Stephen ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes Want to be the first software developer in space? Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7393&alloc_id=16281&op=click _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
