From: Erik Max Francis 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk 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