Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:28:49 09/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2004 at 11:49:31, Andrei Fortuna wrote: >On September 22, 2004 at 10:55:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>I'd stick with Eugene here. I'd rather get flagged for something that looks >>suspicious, and have to take explicit action to get away with it, rather than to >>accept known problematic code unless the user is sophisticated enough to specify >>that such code should produce a diagnostic. The inexperienced programmer needs >>all the help he can get. The experienced programmer will already be playing >>with compiler options for optimization tricks... > >Sounds right to me, but isn't this thinking producing compilers that do not >comply to ISO C/C++ with default settings ? sprintf & co of "unsecure" functions >are still part of C/C++ standard libs ... I would hardly call the ANSI C standard folks geniuses. :) But here the point is that you can still support the "standard" while making it obvious to the programmer that he is doing something _really_ ugly... I could live with that myself, just so I can override the nagging when I really want to do whatever it is that is causing the error/abort.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.