Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!hsdndev!husc6!redsox!campbell
From: campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Funny mistake
Message-ID: <1991Mar25.034700.29885@redsox.bsw.com>
Date: 25 Mar 91 03:47:00 GMT
References: <15490@smoke.brl.mil> <1891@array.UUCP> <1991Mar21.021504.25553@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Reply-To: campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell)
Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc.
Lines: 17

In article <1991Mar21.021504.25553@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
-
-2) Experiance [sic] has shown that having lint seperate [sic] from the compiler
-means that many people would not use it.

Having lint separate from the compiler means we can use lint to check our
code for all platforms, regardless of how benighted their compilers are.  We
ship code on five platforms, none of which are UNIX.  Yet we keep our master
source libraries in RCS on a UNIX box, for two reasons:  RCS and lint,
neither of which have decent equivalents on the platforms we build products
for.

Around here, it is considered *extremely* bad form to check code in to RCS
that hasn't passed lint.
-- 
Larry Campbell             The Boston Software Works, Inc., 120 Fulton Street
campbell@redsox.bsw.com    Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (USA)