"Strong typing vs. strong testing"

[RG]

In article <slrnia9dbo.2uqe.usenet-nospam at guild.seebs.net>,
 Seebs <usenet-nospam at seebs.net> wrote:

> On 2010-09-30, RG <rNOSPAMon at flownet.com> wrote:
> > You can't have it both ways.  Either I am calling it incorrectly, in 
> > which case I should get a compiler error,
> 
> You get a warning if you ask for it.  If you choose to run without all
> the type checking on, that's your problem.

My example compiles with no warnings under gcc -Wall.

Yes, I know I could have used lint.  But that misses the point.  For any 
static analyzer, because of the halting problem, I can construct a 
program that either contains an error that the analyzer will not catch, 
or for which the analyzer will produce a false positive.

rg