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: tmoran@bix.com Subject: Re: Exiting from a function or procedure Date: 2000/04/24 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 614883567 References: <8e05d9$c8$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: news.pacbell.net 956557928 206.170.24.8 (Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:32:08 PDT) Organization: SBC Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:32:08 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-04-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: > > 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. If a situation "clearly" warrants a warning, then it warrants a warning. But there are cases where the "clearly warrants" is disputable. One reason for deciding not to have the compiler issue a particular warning might be: >The trouble with leaving warnings in your code is that you can >easily get into the habit of ignoring warnings, and we see many