Re: [boost] Anoying borland warnings

From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-21 06:38:15

On Wednesday 21 August 2002 01:37 am, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> It one will take a look on into compiler report it see a lot of Borland
> warnings like this:
> Superfluous & with function in function ...
> Borland think that & in front of function name is superfluous.
> Since nobody but Borland complains about this I added following to the
> requirement section on Boost.Test Jamfile:
> <borland><*><cxxflags>-w-8001
> It seems to suppress it. May be we should consider adding this to borland
> tools definition?

Yes, please. I *hate* "Superfluous & with function..."

        Doug