Re^3: [OT] Where does the spurious error message come from?

[jo37]

A compiler that proceeds after recognising an error reminds me of the time when I had to program in PL/I. That beast was designed for those circumstances where you drop a box full of punched cards at the data centre's desk and get the compiler's result the next day. A missing semicolon would have cost you one full day unless the compiler were forgiving enough and guessed you intention. Some of the most serious programming errors, like assigning incompatible types, e.g. pointer to character, resulted in an inconspicuous warning "data conversion done by subroutine call".

[BillKSmith]

I bet that the your warning was buried in a blizzard of warnings about conversions that you did intend. In Perl, there is almost no penalty for recompiling after fixing a few obvious errors. I have come to expect that some of the remaining ones will disappear.

[jo37]

I bet that the your warning was buried in a blizzard of warnings about conversions that you did intend.

No. That's the funny thing: There are so many possible conversions that would be done "out of the box". From / to binary, decimal, float, character: no warnings AFAIR. Whenever this "done by subroutine call" warning appeared, something was badly wrong.