On Sunday 18 November 2007 04:36:15 Paul Cochrane wrote: > On 17/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Author: chromatic > > Date: Sat Nov 17 14:06:29 2007 > > New Revision: 22864 > > > > Modified: > > trunk/src/pmc/closure.pmc > > trunk/src/pmc/key.pmc > > trunk/src/pmc/object.pmc > > trunk/src/pmc/slice.pmc > > trunk/src/pmc/timer.pmc > > > > Log: > > [PMC] Cleaned up some compiler warnings, mostly related to missing > > defaults in switch statements. > > > > I added a couple of exceptions which may need review and testing. Who > > reads commit messages? Let's see if you're on the ball here.
> It looks ok to me. After I added the warning flag for default cases I > noticed that in quite a few instances a C<switch> was used for a > single item and therefore where an C<if> would have done the job more > than adequately. Is there reason to use a C<switch> in such > instances? Is it more efficient? Or is it just trying to anticipate > the future a bit? It looks like a case of anticipating the future. What I meant by the commit message was "Do these exceptions look reasonable, and can someone who isn't me add tests for them?" I'm sort of on a hack-and-slash Sherman-style quest to clean up all of the warnings at the moment and feeling a bit lazy.... -- c
