Re: constexpr keyword is unnecessary

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>

On 26.10.2024 17:08, James Kuyper wrote:
>

On 10/26/24 10:07, Vir Campestris wrote:
>

I have in the past had coding standards that require you to fix all
warnings.  After all, sometimes they do matter.

>
I disapprove of that policy.  A conforming implementation is free to warn
about anything, even about your failure to use taboo words as
identifiers.  While that's a deliberately silly example, I've seen a fair
number of warnings that had little or no justification.
The purpose of warnings is to tell you that there might be a problem.  If
the compiler is certain that there's a problem, it should generate an
error message, not a warning.  Therefore, treating warnings as if they
were error messages means that you're not doing your job, as the
developer, to determine whether or not the code is actually problematic.

>
We had such a null-warning policy as well (in a C++ context) and it
served us well.

>
Yes, we have a similar policy.   Works well.   In the odd case where
one cannot eliminate the warning, a simple compiler option to not
test that particulary condition for that particular compilation unit
is a straightforward solution.

So the actual policy is to fix all warnings except in
cases where it's inconvenient to fix them?