From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11564 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2003 19:10:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11557 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2003 19:09:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 4 Jan 2003 19:09:59 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id 9593BF2DB5; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 14:09:47 -0500 (EST) To: dewar@gnat.com, gmariani@chaincast.com Subject: Re: c++ "with" keyword Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Message-Id: <20030104190947.9593BF2DB5@nile.gnat.com> Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:13:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00158.txt.bz2 > I favour code maintenance. I don't like fixing bugs only to introduce a > whole bunch of new ones that are hard to find. This is probably my > largest concern when it comes to writing code. But once again, if you fix a bug by introducing a new name, then you never introduce a new "bug", simply instances of illegalities that are trivially fixable (you can even write a trivial tool to fix them if you really find it that hard). So they are not "hard to find", since they generate clear diagnostics, and they are not "hard to fix".