On Tuesday 02 December 2003 09:18, Derick Rethans wrote: > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Melvyn Sopacua wrote: > > On Monday 01 December 2003 23:27, Derick Rethans wrote: > > > > I don't quite understand the problem. E_STRICT was only meant for > > > > people who really want to be pedantic. I think we can make it not > > > > part of E_ALL. Is that OK? > > > > > > SOunds good to me, -Wall with gcc doesn't show all errors either... I > > > feel it's very close to this. > > > > If you're going to do this, then do it backwards compatible and 'leave' > > E_ALL at 2047 and move E_STRICT to 2048. > > Many apache administrators will thank you for this ;) > > E_STRICT already is 2048... it's just that E_ALL shouldn't include it.
Good - I was kinda afraid it would be some hack, that changed the value of E_ALL regardless. How about E_PEDANTIC being E_ALL | E_STRICT? Sounds logical to me. -- Melvyn ======================================================= FreeBSD sarevok.webteckies.org 5.2-BETA FreeBSD 5.2-BETA #2: Mon Dec 1 17:58:47 CET 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/ SAREVOK_NOFW_DBG i386 =======================================================
pgp00000.pgp
Description: signature
