Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: constexpr keyword is unnecessary
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2024 19:06:30 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <86r07ru289.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <veb5fi$3ll7j$1@dont-email.me> <vf0l98$3un4n$1@dont-email.me> <vf1216$p0c$1@dont-email.me> <87y12jpxvl.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vf1d2o$2hjk$1@dont-email.me> <87plnvpgb9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vf2sm8$deou$1@dont-email.me> <vf7m4s$1d8mj$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <vf86uc$1fvt3$1@dont-email.me> <vfit29$3obkb$1@dont-email.me> <vfj5up$3q2lf$1@dont-email.me> <vfjcbu$3r4g7$1@dont-email.me> <ExbTO.14733$tnK2.11037@fx04.iad> <86cyjmuoop.fsf@linuxsc.com> <MFuTO.299995$kxD8.185214@fx11.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2024 04:06:41 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f359696380662fa6462481cb0fc8fe02";
	logging-data="821468"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18xGEhTlyHuiQ+a4oZvXCJ22KC5wJlwgQY="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:q+k5Zx4NQ8Cocdef90HurSfjsjY=
	sha1:v0zlhpjpfgN8IC3Cq/jrIMceoOU=
Bytes: 3227

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 26.10.2024 17:08, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/26/24 10:07, Vir Campestris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have in the past had coding standards that require you to fix
>>>>>> all warnings.  After all, sometimes they do matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> I disapprove of that policy.  A conforming implementation is
>>>>> free to warn about anything, even about your failure to use
>>>>> taboo words as identifiers.  While that's a deliberately silly
>>>>> example, I've seen a fair number of warnings that had little or
>>>>> no justification.  The purpose of warnings is to tell you that
>>>>> there might be a problem.  If the compiler is certain that
>>>>> there's a problem, it should generate an error message, not a
>>>>> warning.  Therefore, treating warnings as if they were error
>>>>> messages means that you're not doing your job, as the developer,
>>>>> to determine whether or not the code is actually problematic.
>>>>
>>>> We had such a null-warning policy as well (in a C++ context) and
>>>> it served us well.
>>>
>>> Yes, we have a similar policy.  Works well.  In the odd case where
>>> one cannot eliminate the warning, a simple compiler option to not
>>> test that particulary condition for that particular compilation
>>> unit is a straightforward solution.
>>
>> So the actual policy is to fix all warnings except in
>> cases where it's inconvenient to fix them?
>
> No, I never said that.

I didn't say you did.  I asked a question because I didn't see
any clear statement of what the policy is that was being
followed.  And I still haven't.