Vinzent Höfler wrote:
I just grep'ped the actual sources of the project (about 70K LOC) and
I found exactly four occurences of my "if Ignore_Result() then
{null};" pattern with FPC runtime routines. There are others, but
those routines access hardware and on some occasions I really need to
ignore failures there.
2x IOResult
1x SysUtils.DeleteFile
1x BaseUnix.fpChMod
Twice more of this pattern occured to avoid the compiler hint of
unused parameters. So if "false positives" is an indicator for
uselessness of a compiler message, I'd tend to doubt the usefulness of
that.
So, if I read you correctly, if you call a function that you don't care
what the result is, instead of:
Begin
SomeFunction(123); // Ignore result
End;
... you would have us write:
Var Dummy: SomeType;
Begin
Dummy := SomeFunction(123);
End;
... or else get warnings from the compiler?
I'm afraid there are tons of code out there that this would effect. I
don't think any of the maintainers of such code would appreciate that
change much. Maybe, just maybe, an optional {$MODE
ULTRA_STRICT_FUNCTION_RESULT_USE} type compiler option, whose default
was off, would be ok, but otherwise such a change would be far worse
than the "problem" you are trying to address (someone improperly not
using the function result when they were supposed to).
Jeff.
--
I haven't smoked for 1 year, 11 months and 3 weeks, saving $3,274.62 and
not smoking 21,830.81 cigarettes.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
