Re: [boost] Towards a Warning free code policy proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] Towards a Warning free code policy proposal
From: Emil Dotchevski (emil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-02 20:15:18

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 2 September 2010 11:20, Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Personally, I wouldn't use a table for the
>> data, it crams too much into a small space. I'd just use a separate
>> page for each compiler.
>
> Here's an example of what I mean.
>
> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Guidelines/Warnings/Microsoft

I think that this would be more helpful if it just listed how each
warning responds to various edits instead of suggesting how it should
be fixed. For example, the unreferenced formal parameter warning
section could look like this:

C4100 (Unreferenced formal parameter) - delete the parameter name or
add a reference to the parameter in the function: (void)foo;

Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.
http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode