Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!zben
From: zben@umd5.UUCP (Ben Cranston)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: questions from using lint
Message-ID: <942@umd5.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-May-86 19:38:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: umd5.942
Posted: Fri May  2 19:38:25 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 4-May-86 06:23:13 EDT
References: <453@brl-smoke.ARPA> <219@aplvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: zben@umd5.UUCP (Ben Cranston)
Organization: U of Md, CSC, College Park, Md
Lines: 28
Summary: Use lint but don't be religious about it

In article <219@aplvax.UUCP> ded@aplvax.UUCP (Don E. Davis) writes:

>In article <*> Root Boy Jim writes:
>>You people fail to realize that some of us out here don't like lint.
>>It complains too much about what I do. ... 

>I know several excellent programmers who never use lint.  ...

Hmm, I remember a certain Cobol compiler that had an 'E' option to generate
error messages - because it generated such a quantity of informational
diagnostics but its users wanted "clean compiles".  I can see Cobol types
complaining about this, but US?

I'll be perfectly happy when I can understand what lint is saying to me,
and convince myself that it is just being paranoid.

Dare I suggest this: a filter for lint output that only lets the real bad
errors through?  Dare I suggest THIS: that it would be easier if every line
from lint had an identification tag like this:

BCD325I: Bad C construct at line 2543342

(No, No, anything but EBCDIC!)

-- 
"We're taught to cherish what we have   |          Ben Cranston
 by what we have no longer..."          |          zben@umd2.umd.edu
                          ...{seismo!umcp-cs,ihnp4!rlgvax}!cvl!umd5!zben