At first it was my knee-jerk reaction as well but it's bit dumb frankly. I write some python semi-regularly and even though I'm familiar with its syntax I commo

At first it was my knee-jerk reaction as well but it's bit dumb frankly. I write some python semi-regularly and even though I'm familiar with its syntax I commonly end up putting ; at the end of statements (which generally doesn't do anything for better or worse) and use && and || instead of 'and' and 'or', mainly out of muscle memory. I can imagine a casual C coder could easily end up using ^ as "pow" for very much the same reason if they're used to it working that way in other languages. On top of that the proposed warning has extremely low chances of triggering on a false positive on actually legit code. I think it's a good proposal. >Without to mention the kind of bugs created by such incorrect usage would be simple to spot most of the cases. That's not obvious to me at all. Bogus bitfield values could be rather tricky to track down, especially since they might work correctly "by chance" in simple cases (for instance even if the value of the constant is completely wrong, as long as it's != 0 you can set it with |= and test it with & and it'll appear to work mostly correctly).