🚀 go-pugleaf

rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:

>In article <1992Dec31.150047.22321@crd.ge.com> volpe@ausable.crd.ge.com writes:
>+I disagree violently with the assertion that any errors one might make
>+would necessarily result in non-standard-conformant code. Just because 
>+it's conformant doesn't mean it's intended. Anyone who says such a thing
>+obviously never writes original code for a living, or otherwise is a 
>+complete programming God who has never made a mistake and never found
>+lint to be the least bit useful. 
>
>There is a big difference between using an optional tool like lint, and/or
>having warnings which you can *ignore* at your option, and getting *hard*
>errors from your compiler for perfectly standard conformant code.

The -pedantic-errors option is (as the name implies) *optional*.

>Lint is good.  Warnings are good.  Hard errors for perfectly standard
>conformant code are BAD!  I do not wish to have my compiler give me s**t
>when I'm trying to port some perfectly standard conforming code.  Nor do
>I think that it should be forcing me to change such code, just to get
>it to compile and link.

It's not. All you have to change is the compiler options.

-- 
Fergus Henderson             fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU      
This .signature virus is a self-referential statement that is true - but 
you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own
.signature file!