[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: new pacification suggestion?
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: new pacification suggestion? |
Date: |
Tue, 20 Nov 2018 23:18:57 +0100 |
> Le 20 nov. 2018 à 21:32, Paul Eggert <address@hidden> a écrit :
>
> On 11/20/18 12:01 PM, Akim Demaille wrote:
>> - if (false)
>> + if ((false))
>
> This goes too far. If clang is warning about this sort of thing, then we
> should disable that clang warning. Again, compilers should be our servants,
> not our masters.
I don’t have any problems with having two pairs of parens, after all we’ve done
that forever in the case of assignments in if’s etc. That’s a clear way to
tell the others, including the compiler, that something fishy is intentional
(until ‘sic’ becomes a keyword).
The problem here is that it does not work, although it should.
- new pacification suggestion?, Uxio Prego, 2018/11/15
- Re: new pacification suggestion?, Uxio Prego, 2018/11/15
- Fwd: new pacification suggestion?, Uxio Prego, 2018/11/16
- Re: new pacification suggestion?, Akim Demaille, 2018/11/20
- Re: new pacification suggestion?, Akim Demaille, 2018/11/20
- Re: new pacification suggestion?, Paul Eggert, 2018/11/20
- Re: new pacification suggestion?, Uxio Prego, 2018/11/20
- Re: new pacification suggestion?,
Akim Demaille <=
- Re: new pacification suggestion?, Akim Demaille, 2018/11/25
- Re: new pacification suggestion?, Uxio Prego, 2018/11/25
- Re: new pacification suggestion?, Uxio Prego, 2018/11/25