From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-27 20:19:38
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:23:31 -0500, Rene Rivera
>It's the false negatives that are worrisome. For example:
>const char * x = "//foo"; int x = min(10,20);
>Not that I think anyone would write such code. But strange things do
>> In short we wanted them to be just
>> more accurate than they are(n't) now.
>OK. So you're saying we can make the comments conform to something the
>inspection program will understand?
I was basically thinking out loud, trying to find a solution. I
considered implementing <boostinspect:nominmax>,
</boostinspect:nominmax> for instance. But I find it a bit "heavy".
Perhaps we can ask developers to write "Min" in comments, with an
>I guess you would have to be extremely careful, and especially limiting,
>with the regex to have some degree of confidence false negatives don't
Yes, that's true, though the current implementation isn't free from
problems in that regard.
#define BOOST_MY_LIB_SMALLEST min
BOOST_MY_LIB_SMALLEST(x, y) // no problem detected here
>> PS: did you read my suggestion about commit triggers?
>I don't remember reading it. But I do remember that was suggested some
>time ago regarding inspection. I think I mentioned some problems with
>that back then ;-)
Hmm... I'll search in the mailing list archives :-)
-- [ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk