http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericgu/archive/2005/12/14/503589.aspxMy code samples of the past couple of days have led to a few requests for warnings, which reminds me of a story. So gather round old Grandpa Gunnerson. Like many such stories, this is something I've said before - probably on this very blog - but I canen-USTelligent Evolution Platform Developer Build (Build: 5.6.50428.7875)http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericgu/archive/2005/12/14/503589.aspx#504106Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:32:43 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:504106Michael S. KaplanWarnings have their own dangers if one does not keep on top of them.... <br> <br>cf: <a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/mdolenga/402712.aspx">http://blogs.msdn.com/mdolenga/402712.aspx</a><div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=504106" width="1" height="1">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericgu/archive/2005/12/14/503589.aspx#503840Thu, 15 Dec 2005 02:58:25 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:503840MiralI'd rather have tons and tons of warnings, but be able to invidually (and temporarily) disable them at the line-of-code level. That's the best of both worlds -- you get told about anything suspicious, but you can make it go away once you've confirmed that it's ok in that situation. <br> <br>AND you have a bit of implicit documentation there so that later on if a bug crops up in that bit of code you can look at it and see &quot;oh, we disabled a warning there -- maybe it really WAS a problem after all&quot;. <br> <br>Especially since in VS2005 it seems to be more difficult to get hold of FxCop.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=503840" width="1" height="1">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericgu/archive/2005/12/14/503589.aspx#503668Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:18:52 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:503668MattYes I admit that I hadn't thought about the fact that you cannot use an explicit new to at least make it clear on reading class B that it was doing something possibly unpleasant, thus obviating the warning. <br> <br>prob doesn't justify a new 'new' keyword 'maybenew' or 'potentialshadow' :)<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=503668" width="1" height="1">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericgu/archive/2005/12/14/503589.aspx#503619Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:05:56 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:503619Chris NahrI just wish that C# 2.0 wouldn't warn about ambiguous method references in XML comment tags where the target method is overloaded (0419). That's perfectly valid when one intends to reference a family of overloads, rather than a specific one. The default action (linking to the first overload) is fine, too. What's there to warn about?<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=503619" width="1" height="1">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericgu/archive/2005/12/14/503589.aspx#503595Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:14:12 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:503595Gavin GreigFor what it's worth, there are some of us out here who turn warnings up to 4 and turn on warnings as errors too, so it's not wasted effort. <br> <br>It's nice to think we might be top 2% developers, but I doubt that's actually the case.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=503595" width="1" height="1">