Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:38:09 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> Cc: julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer), current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd) Message-ID: <199901290038.RAA02885@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199901281956.LAA22422@bubba.whistle.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9901280335450.304-100000@s204m82.isp.whistle.com> <199901281956.LAA22422@bubba.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Some people when confronted by people wanting to have extra braces > > say "change style(9)". > > > > Well, here is my change.. > > You can count my vote. > > I would also add a paragraph like this: > > If possible code should complile cleanly with gcc's -Wall flag. > Note however that this does not imply that it's OK to eliminate > warnings simply by covering them up with typecasts, etc., as that > actually does more harm than good. > > I hope that wording is sufficiently unoffensive to the -Wall haters. '-Wall haters'. That almost sounds like 'Wall-flowers' or something. :) Agreed, but that's not the only reason I dislike '-Wall'. The other reason is that some of the warnings enabled in -Wall are purely stylistic, and are not even warnings. Making all software compile quietly with gcc -Wall means complying with what the GNU folks thinks is the correct 'style' of writing software, rather than having style issues ignored. In other words, you end up making change change for the sake of change, which is silly just to please the compiler. But, after the recent flame fiasco I'm not saying anything more. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901290038.RAA02885>