"Todd C. Miller" <todd.mil...@courtesan.com> writes: > On Fri, 10 May 2013 23:58:23 +0200, > =?utf-8?Q?J=C3=A9r=C3=A9mie_Courr=C3=A8ges- > Anglas?= wrote: > >> > + switch (numbering_properties[section].type) { >> > + case number_all: >> > + /* >> > + * Doing this for number_all only is disputable, but >> > + * the standard expresses an explicit dependency on >> > + * `-b a' etc. >> > + */ >> > + if (buffer[0] == '\n' && ++adjblank < nblank) >> > + donumber = 0; >> > + else >> > + donumber = 1, adjblank = 0; >> > + break; >> > + case number_nonempty: >> > + donumber = (buffer[0] != '\n'); >> > + break; >> > + case number_none: >> > + donumber = 0; >> > + break; >> > + case number_regex: >> > + donumber = >> > + (regexec(&numbering_properties[section].expr, >> > + buffer, 0, NULL, 0) == 0); >> > + break; >> >> What about a default case here, to make WARNINGS=Yes shut up? > > I think that would be a mistake. All the possible enum values are > already listed in the switch. Omitting a default: label allows the > compiler to warn when a new value is added to the enum that is not > handled by the switch.
Indeed, I hadn't thought about this. > - todd -- Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas PGP Key fingerprint: 61DB D9A0 00A4 67CF 2A90 8961 6191 8FBF 06A1 1494