> "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU> writes:
>
> > The fact of the matter is, by having the compiler issue these warnings,
> > it makes folks much more likely to ignore *all* compiler warnings, since
> > so many of them will be false positives.
>
> If somebody behaves like this it is her/his own fault and I certainly
> won't trust the program. This whole discussion looks to me as if some
> people fear the extra work caused by this. If the program is written
> correctly casts are only necessary if to correct some misconceptions
> in the language definition but this is really not frequent.
Not frequent? You are utterly WRONG! See for example the breain dead Xt
widget writers "abstraction level" library. If You ever had anything to do
with it you would know what's about programming wihtout any
typechecking....
Marcin