On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Robert Dewar <de...@adacore.com> wrote: >>> On 4/12/2012 10:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >>> >>>>>> -W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w) >>>>>> -W1: default >>>>>> -W2: equivalent to the current -Wall >>>>>> -W3: equivalent to the current -Wall -Wextra >>>>> >>>>> I like this suggestion a lot. >>> >>> Me too! >>> >>> I also like short switches, but gcc mostly favors long >>> hard-to-type not-necessarily-easy-to-remember switch >>> names. >> >> People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually >> the greater the better or in this case the worse) which >> creates another set of confusion. > > What's the problem? The greater the number, the more warnings you get. > Simple.
Not necessarily. By contrast, -Wname suggest switch warning you could expect. Note also that "short" does not need to be a number. > >> Geodelization is great >> for machines, hardly so as human interface. > > I don't think the incompleteness theorem is remotely relevant here. It is the process, not the end end result. > > cheers, > DaveK > >
