From owner-freebsd-questions  Mon Aug 26 07:18:28 1996
Return-Path: owner-questions
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA12143
          for questions-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 07:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from freenet.hamilton.on.ca (main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca [199.212.94.65])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA12137
          for <questions@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 07:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca [199.212.94.66]) by freenet.hamilton.on.ca (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA09297; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 10:17:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from ac199@localhost) by james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA01677; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 10:19:39 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 10:19:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
To: Robert Nordier <rnordier@iafrica.com>
cc: hoek@freenet.hamilton.on.ca, questions@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Programming Question
In-Reply-To: <199608260812.KAA02909@eac.iafrica.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960826101246.27905B-100000@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 26 Aug 1996, Robert Nordier wrote:

> Note that 'typedef' doesn't create types, just synonyms for existing
> types.  So the assignment <AT> = <int> doesn't involve a type
> conflict in any sense.

If I set a typedef, it's because I want all variables in a given group to 
be that type.  I might later decide to change that (ie. int isn't quite 
large enough when someone decides to check a doc with 66000 words; let's 
try long int).  All of a sudden, a bunch of errors will spew all over the 
place.  I'd prefer to know about them now, rather than later.  The 
exception, of course, is when passing a variable of type <AT> (where <AT> 
== <int>) to a library function expecting an int.  In all other places a 
warning would be nice... :(


> For automated nitpicking, I like 'lclint' (from the 'lcc' compiler
> people):
> 
> | LCLint 2.0 --- 21 Mar 96
> |
[ warnings deleted ]
> |
> | Finished LCLint checking --- 2 code errors found

I like it!


--
Outnumbered?  Maybe.  Outspoken?  Never!
tIM...HOEk