Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Sep 1997 17:28:52 +0100 (GMT/BST) | From | Mike Jagdis <> | Subject | Re: Style question: comparison between signed and unsigned? |
| |
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 brianh@risky.bit3.com wrote:
> Um, how is this worse then having tons of implicit and undocumented > typecasts hidden throughout the code?
Implicit type casts follow strict rules. Once people start explicitly type casting *everything* you have to assume they knew what they were doing - and got it right.
> Dumb programmers write dumb programs. Granted. Smart programmers take > advantage of this behavior, and only typecast when this warning comes up > and they have looked at the situation and decided yes, the conversion is > what they mean (or changed the types of other variables to the correct > type).
We all know that there are those of us (you?) who can get it right and that the majority can't be trusted. I want to stand a chance of QA'ing that code...
Mike
-- .----------------------------------------------------------------------. | Mike Jagdis | Internet: mailto:mike@roan.co.uk | | Roan Technology Ltd. | | | 54A Peach Street, Wokingham | Telephone: +44 118 989 0403 | | RG40 1XG, ENGLAND | Fax: +44 118 989 1195 | `----------------------------------------------------------------------'
| |