Eep, you are right, as usual I answered a non-existing question, but
this brings up a point. Various times I've seen people changing
"signedness" of variables, etc. in one or two places to clear up a
few warnings and I'm wondering how many times there have been ripple
effects.
I'm very happy for all the cleanup work lately, I was just thinking that
removing warnings for the sake of less spam might not be preferable
to leaving the warning in and forcing the originator to rethink his code
in due time.
We are still in an alpha code situation and we realize that things will
probably be rewritten more than once so maybe its something to keep
in mind.
To be clear, what Andy is doing is the right thing(asking what the intent
of a piece of code is), but I doubt everyone does this and I'm sure Dan
doesn't check every single line of every patch before eating each one, or
if
he does he is, as of now, my hero.
-Melvin Smith
IBM :: Atlanta Innovation Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: 770-835-6984
Steve Fink
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Tanton Gibbs
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: Andy Dougherty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Perl6 Internals
01/15/2002 02:26 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PM Subject: Re: gcc warnings:
rx->startindex
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:06:17PM -0500, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
> You could break it up into:
>
> else if( rx->startindex == 0 ) {
> goto OFFSET($2);
> }
> else {
> --rx->startindex
> }
Or simply change the condition to 'if (rx->startindex-- == 0)'. But
the real question he's asking is: what is correct? Is it better to
leave startindex at zero, or is it ok to let it wrap around? (And if
so, should it really be signed in the first place?) Probably only
Brent Dax can decide.
