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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,30f8e9ec3e840189
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-10 09:41:16 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail
From: Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: avl tree - booch components
Date: 10 Sep 2001 12:21:54 -0400
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Message-ID: <un143ggnx.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
References: <20010907091153.12625104.tonygair@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk>
 <Ej0w7lFo08Zw-pn2-bc66K1ONCmcE@jupiter.dwparsons.dialin.t-online.de>
 <x7v1ylgmd7f.fsf@smaug.pushface.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1000138980 329 128.183.220.71 (10 Sep 2001
 16:23:00 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: dscoggin@cne-odin.gsfc.nasa.gov
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Sep 2001 16:23:00 GMT
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12993
Date: 2001-09-10T16:23:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:

> dwparsons@t-online.de (Dave Parsons) writes:
> 
> > Yes, I compiled all the tests and demos last weekend.  I had to turn
> > off the style checking though, too many lines too long.
> 
> -gnaty gives errors on 3.13p, I'm used to warnings with 3.14a1. Sorry.
> The 'lines too long' are typically the revision control strings, shame
> CVS doesn't let you customise what $Id$ gives you ..

Hmm. I agree it would be nice if you could have both CVS $Id$ and no
warnings from the GNAT style check. However, given a choice between
the two, I'll take the no warnings.

Do you ever actually read the output of CVS $Id$ ? What is it actually
used for?

Ignoring warnings in general is very bad practice, and it's too easy
to go from "well, _this_ warning is ok" to "I checked all the warnings
last week, I'll ignore them this time" to "just ignore the warnings".

-- 
-- Stephe