Ehsan Akhgari writes: > On 2015-05-07 5:53 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: >> Ehsan Akhgari writes: >> >>>> This seems similar to the compiler warning situation. >>>> Usually at least, I don't think we should automatically modify the >>>> code in line with how the compiler reads the code just to silence >>>> the warning. Instead the warning is there to indicate that a >>>> programmer needs to check the code. >>> >>> These cases bear no similarity whatsoever. I can't think of any >>> compiler warnings that can be automatically fixed without changing >>> the meaning of the program. >> >> The warning that you are proposing to fix here is >> -Woverloaded-virtual. > > No. My proposal is completely unrelated to function overloading. > > Perhaps you're thinking of clang's > -Winconsistent-missing-override? This proposal obviously fixes > that warning (as a mere side effect), but that warning wouldn't > catch everything that this proposal covers.
Ah, yes. Sorry to confusing things. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
