Re: syntax-check hits on gnulib itself

[Simon Josefsson]

Bruno Haible <address@hidden> writes:

> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Any objections to this patch?
>
> Yes, I object.
>
> Some people/projects prefer implicit conversions over explicit casts (e.g.
> Paul, coreutils). Some people/projects prefer explicit casts over implicit
> conversions (e.g. me, gettext). We've discussed this issue on this list
> a few years ago. Each side has its arguments. No side could convince the
> other side. So we have no common coding style on this topic in gnulib.
>
> I object to your proposed change because
>   - It makes a gratuitous change to error.c which comes from glibc, and
>     which we try to keep as closely in sync with glibc as possible.
>   - The file vasnprintf.c is intended to be written with explicit casts,
>     because I maintain it.

No problem, I wasn't aware that this was a contentious issue.

>> I ran 'make syntax-check' (from gnulib's maint.mk) and it detected some
>> problems in code in gnulib itself
>
> These are not problems in the code. You better avoid to apply this coding
> conventions checker against a file that is written with different coding
> conventions.

Automated code quality checks are still useful though, but agreeing on
which tests to include may be complicated.

/Simon