Subject: Re: [boost] Towards a Warning free code policy proposal
From: Emil Dotchevski (emil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-08-29 13:47:29
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Mathias Gaunard
> 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 of
> - 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 easily
This is besides the point.
>> 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.
T(x) is even more dangerous than static_cast because in certain
situations it is equivalent to a C-style cast.
The safest thing to do is to let the carefully designed implicit
conversion system of the language take care of things. At most, I'd
add assert(size>=0) but that's often an overkill.
The best way to avoid this warning in this case is to compare with !=
instead of <. I like != better anyway because it is less defensive, it
breaks easier if I mess up the loop.
Reverge Studios, Inc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk