Subject: Re: [boost] [warnings] Are warnings acceptable artifactsfrom builds?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-08 17:03:38
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Kenny Riddile<kfriddile_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>>> I think that warnings must be fixed when the needed work is not huge. It
>>> will be great if Boost defined which warning must be fixed and which ones
>>> are allowed. When a warning is allowed and not fixed a comment on the line
>>> could help users to know if the warning is know (will not be fixed) or if
>>> it is a new one. In this way the author will compare the effort to fix it or
>>> add the comment.
>> I disagree. Warnings are a personal conversation between the compiler
>> and the author of the code. They are nobody else's business.
> That statement seems to conflict with your argument against fixing/silencing
> warnings in library code. For example, I am not the author of
> Boost.Exception, therefore any warnings emitted by it are none of my
> business. According to what you just said, the only person who should ever
> see warnings emitted by Boost.Exception is you.
Yes, so don't look at any warnings in Boost.Exception :P
Reverge Studios, Inc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk