Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!camelback!volpe
From: volpe@camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Funny mistake
Message-ID: <17767@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 21 Mar 91 14:12:25 GMT
References: <1991Mar16.195153.15509@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <15490@smoke.brl.mil> <1991Mar20.173511.3904@zoo.toronto.edu> <15529@smoke.brl.mil>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Reply-To: volpe@camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe)
Lines: 23

In article <15529@smoke.brl.mil>, gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
|>In article <1991Mar20.173511.3904@zoo.toronto.edu>
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
|>>Even in the world of UNIX, the compilers generate warnings for
|>>excessively-suspicious constructs.
|>
|>Only for outright violations of the language specification,
|>not for what are now known as strictly conforming programs.

I wouldn't mind having warnings for suspicious yet strictly conforming
constructs. Especially if I could do:

#pragma SHUT_UP
if (temp=var1)
  printf("func(%d) is %d\n",temp,func(&var1));
else
  printf("Value is zero! Cannot apply function. Aborting...\n");
#pragma OK_TO_NAG
      
==================
Chris Volpe
G.E. Corporate R&D
volpecr@crd.ge.com