FreeTDS Development Group

["ZIGLIO, Frediano, VF-IT" <Frediano.Ziglio AT vodafone.com>]

> 
> On Dec 18,  2:00pm, jklowden AT freetds.org ("James K. Lowden") wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: [freetds] warnings, again (was: Re:  going 64!)
> 
> | Christos Zoulas wrote:
> | > The gcc warnings are geared towards the majority of the programmer
> | > population.  All I can say is that I've met quite a few 
> programmers
> | > that did not know the precedence of && and ||. 
> | 
> | I'm sure you deal with more C coders than I do, and I don't 
> doubt your
> | experience.  It boils down to a kind of "reasonable man" 
> argument: how
> | much knowledge of operator precedence is it reasonable to 
> assume?  Because
> | you surely wouldn't write:
> | 
> |     a = (b + c);
> | or  a = (++b);
> 
> No, I would not write that :-)
> 
> | You prefer to defer to the compiler writers because they have more
> | information about what confuses people, and because their 
> choices conform
> | to your experience.  I think that's reasonable.  On another 
> project I
> | might do the same.  I'm not always a crank.  
> 
> And also because they are forcing me to. By making this 
> warning part of
> Wall, and by not allowing me to individually turn this 
> warning off, they
> are forcing me to comply :-)
> 
> | But when I find extra parentheses, I look more closely to 
> see what's going
> | on.  Is it:
> | 
> | 1.  Something unusual?  (I hope so.)
> | 2.  A bug?
> | 3.  Expressing only what the compiler would do without them? 
> | 
> | I have to examine #1 and #2 carefully before I conclude #3. 
>  I can't be
> | the only one.  
> | 
> | I would prefer to remove #3 from the problem domain.  I think that's
> | reasonable, too.  Even if that means befuddling the less 
> knowledgeable,
> | who need to learn (and will).  After all, it was hard to 
> write.  It should
> | be hard to read, too.  
> 
> Yes, but that is you. There are others who when they don't see
> parentheses are scratching their heads wondering what the compiler
> is doing with the code. Granted, they should know better, but they
> don't. There is yet another category of people who are not bothered
> by the existence or the lack of parentheses. I fall into that
> category, with a slight preference to having the parentheses,
> perhaps because they have been forced down my throat for many years.
> 
> | I have to conclude that reasonable people can disagree on 
> this point, else
> | I'd have to conclude I'm being unreasonable.  
> | 
> | Fianlly, to both of you, and to others who've contributed 
> what little
> | light this discussion has generated: thanks for reminding 
> me FreeTDS is
> | compiled in many different environments and that its 
> portability is an
> | asset to you.  I think "builds anywhere, runs anywhere" is 
> a worthy goal
> | for the project.  Your participation furthers it. 
> 
> Thanks! My last comment is that I value the other gcc 
> warnings too much
> to be losing (not compiling with warnings turned on) them for a few
> parentheses.
> 
> christos

If someone wants my opinion warnings are usually useful and I removed a
lot of them. I usually remove all them making compiler happy. But this
case is something very particular... it's somethink like correcting 4+2x
with 4+(2*x) in a mathematical equation.

freddy77