Re: [pooma-dev] RFA: Reorder Initializers (2 of 3)

[Scott Haney]

On Wednesday, March 28, 2001, at 05:52 PM, Jeffrey Oldham wrote:

> I do not believe the C++ standard requires this.  Mark Mitchell
> explained to me that g++ warns because g++ assumes copy constructors
> that do not deal with a base class accidentally omit dealing with the
> base class and the author should look into this.  Neither he nor I
> know of a way to turn off these g++ warnings without turning off all
> warnings.
>
> > Please
> > accept: if you want g++ users to not have to deal with warning messages
> > reject: otherwise.

I think these are bad warnings that are more properly emitted by a lint 
type program.

It is next to impossible for folks working with compilers who aren't 
similarly enthusiastic in the warning department to guard against this. 
If we try to enforce this policy, it will put a strain on the people 
compiling with GCC to reorder and add stuff. Recognizing that 
warning-free compilation is a good thing, do we want to take on this 
burden?

Scott