In article <slrnia9dbo.2uqe.usenet-nos...@guild.seebs.net>, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2010-09-30, RG <rnospa...@flownet.com> wrote: > > You can't have it both ways. Either I am calling it incorrectly, in > > which case I should get a compiler error, > > You get a warning if you ask for it. If you choose to run without all > the type checking on, that's your problem. My example compiles with no warnings under gcc -Wall. Yes, I know I could have used lint. But that misses the point. For any static analyzer, because of the halting problem, I can construct a program that either contains an error that the analyzer will not catch, or for which the analyzer will produce a false positive. rg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
