Thomas Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | That would be great and I will ask very, very nicely and offer to | help any way I can however... | I didn't want this totally tied to -Weffc++ unless there was also a | separate switch for turning it on/off because: | | 1.) Last time I checked g++'s own standard library headers did not | pass -Weffc++ cleanly and hence I couldn't get a clean build of my C+ | + code using -Weffc++. | 2.) A lot of other 3rd party C++ headers including the last version | of Boost I was using (admittedly a relatively old version, maybe | version 1.30) didn't pass -Weffc++ cleanly. | 3.) People have many times debated the validity/usefulness of some of | the warnings that -Weffc++ produces and I think it's better to have | individual switches for each warning in -Weffc++ and then -Weffc++ | just becomes a batch switch that turns on the individual switches en | masse.
What I find the most annoying with -Weffc++ is not the rules themselves; but the fact that is that it is a set of guidelines designed for a *particular style* of programming in C++ -yet- many people see it as _The Right Way_ of doing things in C++, forgetting this is a multi-paradigm language and not a Pure <fill-in your favorite buzzword> programming language. I do not find it surprising that major software components like libstdc++ or Boost do not slavishly follow -Weffc++ -- I would have been surprised if they did. -- Gaby
