Subject: Re: [boost] Towards a Warning free code policy proposal
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-08-29 05:50:54
On 28/08/2010 22:11, Mika Heiskanen wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 22:17 +0300, Robert Ramey wrote:
>> d) some were too hard to fix/eliminate comparison between signed/unsigned -
>> I just left them because I didn't know how to fix them
Comparing signed and unsigned integers can be a serious issue, since
that means you might not deal with negative cases properly, which is why
there are warnings.
> Am I missing some complication I'm not aware of?
> In my experience this warning is just about always the result of
> using int for variables which should be of type size_t, as in
> for(int i=0; i<object.size(); i++)
I never understood why some people even write code like this.
There are several problems with this:
- using int, even though int has no direct relation with the size type
- using indexes and size instead of iterators, which have an idiomatic
way to be traversed
- making the code rely on a particular data structure, instead of
allowing it to work with any sequence type, allowing the code to be more
> If I cannot redefine all the types to unsigned, something like this
> usually fixes the problem:
> if ( size>= 0&& static_cast<size_t>(size)< object.size() )
size_t(size) instead of static_cast<size_t>(size) should work just fine.
No need for any cast.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk