From:	Erik Max Francis <max AT alcyone DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: funny re user-defined ++ and -- operators
Date:	Tue, 15 Apr 1997 21:14:23 -0700
Organization:	Alcyone Systems
Lines:	43
Message-ID:	<3354521F.2AED95FA@alcyone.com>
References:	<97Apr11.122200gmt+0100 DOT 21891 AT internet01 DOT amc DOT de>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	newton.alcyone.com
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Chris Croughton wrote:

> I have a philosophical objection to having unused arguments.

I understand your objections.  I basically strive to achieve no warnings
whatsoever (with all warnings on) from compilers; gcc, what I consider a
very good compilers, even has syntax you can use which, still legal, will
cause the compiler not to emit a warning.

As a concrete example, gcc has a workaround about the if (a = b) warning
(e.g., "Didn't you mean a == b?") which simply has you write if ((a = b)).

Not all compilers are this smart, so often you have to deal with them or
change your coding style.

> It
> comes from many years of compilers and lint complaining about
> unused arguments (so much so that I have a standard
> 
> #define NOTUSED(x)  (x=x)
> 
> to satisfy compilers - it's usually optimised out but generally
> after it has suppressed the warning).

Since we're talking C++, you can simply not name the variables passed into
functions.  e.g., if you have a function f which takes an argument i which
is not used, you can change the definition 

    void f(int i) { ... }

to

    void f(int /* i */) { ... }

and C++ compilers won't complain.

-- 
       Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE / email / max AT alcyone DOT com
                     Alcyone Systems /   web / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, California, United States /  icbm / 37 20 07 N  121 53 38 W
                                   \
                      "The future / is right there."
                                 / Bill Moyers

- Raw text -