I missed today's OCI internal C++ lunch meeting. However I caught the email thread that ensued about a piece of C++ code, the meaning of which was not agreed upon in the meeting. Kevin, the good C++ language lawyer he is, checked the standard and send out the email. Dale followed up on the email:
Kevin wrote:
>
> So, in short, I was wrong again.
As was I, but I still think the code is bad. :-(
Dale's anti-language-lawyer rule: If you have to
consult the standard to see if the code is correct,
then the code is incorrect.
>
> KevinH
I just thought the world would be a better place if more people followed Dale's rule.