From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,dabd2d2ffbcf1daa
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Exiting from a function or procedure
Date: 2000/04/24
Message-ID: <8e05d9$c8$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614796763
References: <8duvlj$opk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <vzJM4.1253$t25.356170@news.pacbell.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x43.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Apr 24 00:44:28 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 2000-04-24T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <vzJM4.1253$t25.356170@news.pacbell.net>,
  tmoran@bix.com wrote:
>   A classic tradeoff in this case between Type 1 and Type 2
> error probabilities.

Actually I see no trade off here, there is no advantage in a
compiler NOT warning in cases which clearly warrant a warning.

We find surprisingly few cases of warnings that are not
warranted, and they are easily dealt with.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.