Walter

Another hearty congrats

In doing some compiler comparative work, I'm running my base COM library (44 C & 37 C++ source file; 111 header files) through a range of compilers.

DMC++ has again shone its little beacon of quality on my code.

It has been my practise for a number of years to denote empty blocks, whether they be methods or loop contents, as the following

 {}

not

 {
 }

nor, in the case of loops,

 ;

However, we're now passing into code that's been unchanged for over half a decade - has COM been going that long? No wonder the M$ marketing team have decided it is in our best interests to have something new to learn! - and joy of joys, DMC++ informs me

  "Warning 7: possible extraneous ';'"

since

  for(end = dir; *end != xT('\0'); ++end);

should be written as is my (current) wont

  for(end = dir; *end != xT('\0'); ++end)
 {}

Nice one. ;)