>>> Matthew, I too am sorry. My intention wasn't to tell you what to do
>>> or
>>> how  to do it, but rather to share an ideal to which I prescribe.
>>>
>>> I have replied to your last post, probably because I have to have
>>> the
>>> last  word. :)
>>>
>>> I would be happy if you felt like reading and replying, thought I'll
>>> understand if you simply want to leave the horse where it lies, so
>>> to
>>> speak.
>>>
>>> To re-iterate I have the greatest respect for both you and Kris (and many  other people here), at the same time I have strong opinions of my own and  will always share them. I realise that I can come across aggressively, I  fear it's a flaw of what I hope is a passionate nature.
>>
>> Regan, I am, like everyone else, flawed in myriad ways. One of 'em is
>> I
>> don't like being told what to do. Add that to a few frustrating days
>> in
>> my work life, and you get overreaction, rudeness, patronisation and
>> general bad form.
>>
>> I think the way you carry on with the logic is irritating, but
>
> Understood. I'll do my best to curtail my religeous zeal.
>
>> (i) I
>> overreacted, and (ii) I know full well that I can be, and often am,
>> at
>> least as irritating, and probably in several different ways.
>>
>> 'nuff said?
>
> Yeah. (yet here I am posting more? I really must admit to having a problem  with needing the last word... )

You're welcome to it.

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:25:50 +1100, Matthew <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote:
>> I think you and I have very similar opinions on this matter.
>>
>> I think most all of us here agree on what the best outcome is, what we
>> seem to disagree over is what the compiler can best do to achieve it.
>
> Absolutely. That's the entire problem. Walter thinks that if the
> compiler tells the user there's a problem, the most likely outcome is a
> shut-up

Because of real life contraints, time, etc

> because programmers are unprofessional.

Some are.

> This hamstrings all
> diligent engineers.

I agree. It also mitigates mistakes made by less diligent engineers, or diligent engineers having a bad day or in a bad position.

Basically my problem is that I can see both sides and have no way to measure which side is correct.

Interestingly it's my impression people like the default switch behaviour and dislike the missing return, I am struggling to find the difference between the two, tho I have a nagging feeling there is one.

> Pessimism vs Optimism/Responsibility. As has been
> observed, there's no resolution of this difference, so we need to find a
> compromise.

Wouldn't life be boring if we were all the same.

Regan

I disagree.  He doesn't think that.  He thinks (umm, I think he thinks) that one possible outcome of such a situation is shut up code.  He has expressed that be believes this happens 10% of the time.

Regardless, I think we can probably all agree that verbose should *definitely* show this message.

It seems to me as if Walter doesn't like too many options, but to me this argument and the sides in it seems to indicate the prefect opportunity for some sort of "tell me when I omit returns" option.  The obvious problem is that then, you never know if the compiler has this enabled, and so sometimes good programs when built on other machines (e.g. other platforms, etc.) will give these warnings to the great annoyance of the programmer(s).

But, perhaps, if there was a way to indicate options in the current directory (e.g. ".dmd") that wouldn't be a problem.  And, everyone could enable this option if they understood its effects and that shut up code is bad.  The default could remain off.

Then again, I like options.  When I open Firefox and go to "about:config", it makes me happy.  That was one of the main things that sold me on the browser.  Oh, well.

-[Unknown]


> Absolutely. That's the entire problem. Walter thinks that if the compiler tells the user there's a problem, the most likely outcome is a shut-up because programmers are unprofessional. This hamstrings all diligent engineers. Pessimism vs Optimism/Responsibility. As has been observed, there's no resolution of this difference, so we need to find a compromise. 

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:23:50 +1100, Matthew <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote:
>>> 'nuff said?
>>
>> Yeah. (yet here I am posting more? I really must admit to having a
>> problem  with needing the last word... )
>
> You're welcome to it.

(secretly stealing the last word again)
LOL.. elegantly done!

Regan

"Regan Heath" <regan@netwin.co.nz> wrote in message news:opslwlvgg823k2f5@ally...
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:23:50 +1100, Matthew <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote:
>>>> 'nuff said?
>>>
>>> Yeah. (yet here I am posting more? I really must admit to having a problem  with needing the last word... )
>>
>> You're welcome to it.
>
> (secretly stealing the last word again)
> LOL.. elegantly done!

It was nothing

In article <1koccnt7piohu.8r5ivwwg1lso.dlg@40tude.net>, Derek Parnell says...
>
>On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:25:50 +1100, Matthew wrote:
>
>>>I think you and I have very similar opinions on this matter.
>>>
>>> I think most all of us here agree on what the best outcome is, what we seem to disagree over is what the compiler can best do to achieve it.
>> 
>> Absolutely. That's the entire problem. Walter thinks that if the compiler tells the user there's a problem, the most likely outcome is a shut-up because programmers are unprofessional. This hamstrings all diligent engineers. Pessimism vs Optimism/Responsibility. As has been observed, there's no resolution of this difference, so we need to find a compromise.
>> 
>
>The best compromise I've heard of so far is to have the '-v' (verbose) DMD switch to tell me (a hopefully responsible coder) where DMD has inserted the assert(0) code. Most people do not use -v in normal compilations, so only anal coders, such as myself, could use it to find out where I could improve my poor coding practices.
>
>[snipped stuff that is not relevant to the above comment]
>
>-- 
>Derek
>Melbourne, Australia
>9/02/2005 10:11:31

Good stuff.

Whilst on the subject, let's add the implicit "default:" injection to that list of "diagnostics" also. Frankly, I find it vaguely annoying when a compiler thinks it knows best, and does so silently.

All changes made to the original code, as 'designed' by the programmer, should be clearly noted during compile time -- if that requires a -v switch, then great!

Diagnostics are not warnings; therefore there cannot be any wiffle waffle about them, and Walter may actually accept that as a compromise.

- Kris

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:22:27 +1100, Matthew <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote:
> "Regan Heath" <regan@netwin.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:opslwlvgg823k2f5@ally...
>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:23:50 +1100, Matthew
>> <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote:
>>>>> 'nuff said?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah. (yet here I am posting more? I really must admit to having a
>>>> problem  with needing the last word... )
>>>
>>> You're welcome to it.
>>
>> (secretly stealing the last word again)
>> LOL.. elegantly done!
>
> It was nothing

Again! I fear I am no match...

Regan Heath wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:22:27 +1100, Matthew  <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote:
> 
>> "Regan Heath" <regan@netwin.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:opslwlvgg823k2f5@ally...
>>
>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:23:50 +1100, Matthew
>>> <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> 'nuff said?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah. (yet here I am posting more? I really must admit to having a
>>>>> problem  with needing the last word... )
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're welcome to it.
>>>
>>>
>>> (secretly stealing the last word again)
>>> LOL.. elegantly done!
>>
>>
>> It was nothing
> 
> 
> Again! I fear I am no match...
> 

Okay, guys! This is rediculous. I'll have the last word and be done with it!

:-P

"Regan Heath" <regan@netwin.co.nz> wrote in message news:opslwm1ox523k2f5@ally...
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:22:27 +1100, Matthew <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote:
>> "Regan Heath" <regan@netwin.co.nz> wrote in message news:opslwlvgg823k2f5@ally...
>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:23:50 +1100, Matthew <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 'nuff said?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah. (yet here I am posting more? I really must admit to having a problem  with needing the last word... )
>>>>
>>>> You're welcome to it.
>>>
>>> (secretly stealing the last word again)
>>> LOL.. elegantly done!
>>
>> It was nothing
>
> Again! I fear I am no match...

Surely not

"John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cu6mt4$785$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew wrote:
>> Sounds good to me.
>>
>> But I suspect Walter will argue that given the programmer any hint of the problem will result in them putting something in to shut the compiler up. At which point I'll have to smash myself in the head with my laptop.
>>
>
> If it's that new Apple laptop you've got on order, please send it to me before you smash it on your head! ;-)

Cancelled it. I'm not going to document here why Apple have lost my business, but suffice it to say, one can understand their consistent lack of market share. Tossers!