On 23 Jul, Eric Gallager wrote: > On 7/23/17, Volker Reichelt <v.reich...@netcologne.de> wrote: >> Hi again, >> >> here is an updated patch for a new warning about redundant >> access-specifiers. It takes Dave's various comments into account. >> >> The main changes w.r.t. to the previous versions are: >> >> * The warning is now a two-level warning with a slightly shorter name: >> -Waccess-specifiers=1, -Waccess-specifiers=2 >> with -Waccess-specifiers defaulting to -Waccess-specifiers=1. > > Just a more generalized comment as a user, but I don't really like > this trend that new warning options are so often given numeric levels > these days. A warning option with different levels requires special > handling in configure scripts or Makefiles, which is harder than just > toggling different names (i.e. how things work without numeric > levels).
Fair point. >> * The warning now checks for 3 different scenarios, see testcase >> Waccess-specifiers-2.C below: >> A) Two consecutive access-specifiers, so that the first one >> has no effect. (This is new.) >> B) Two (non-consecutive) equal access-specifiers. >> (That's what the original patch checked.) >> C) An access-specifier that does not change the class-type's default. >> (That's what I only suggested in the original patch.) >> The first two tests are enabled in level 1, the last in level 2. > > Instead of levels, I'd prefer A and B to be in an option like the > original -Wduplicate-access-specifiers, while putting C under a > separate name like -Wdefault-access-specifiers. This way they can be > toggled individually, so for example I can get just warning C without > also getting warnings A and B. Using numeric levels makes that > impossible. But that's just my personal preference for how to separate > them, so feel free to disregard me. What I like about the numeric levels is that they are easier to remember. You don't have to look up different names. OTOH, toggling on C without A+B might really make sense here. But I'd like to get some more opinions before I change that. Regards, Volker
