RE: [boost] Boost Library Guidelines

From: William E. Kempf (wekempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-29 14:39:37

Paul A. Bristow said:
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> | [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Terje Slettebø |
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 5:33 PM
> | To: Boost mailing list
> | Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Library Guidelines
> |
> | > May I suggest that we add to "Aim for ISO Standard C++ ..."
> | > "Try to code so that  compiles with 'strict' compiler settings ... |
> | I use the highest warning level (4) for MSVC and Intel C++, and strict
> mode | for the latter, to not ignore any warnings/remarks by default.
>
> | In the cpp-files, not headers, I then selectively disable
> remarks/warnings that are
> | harmless (and there's a lot of them), until it compiles without
> | remarks/warnings. I think one should not get used to ignore warnings
> in the | output, or one could easily miss some which _does_ matter,
> which is why I | disable the ones that don't.
> |
> | In many cases, on level 4, there's _no_ practical way to turn off a |
> remark/warning, without using #pragma. Therefore, I think it may be
> better | to use a #pragma (in the cpp-file), than telling the user to
> ignore the | remarks/warnings. In header-only libraries, like much of
> the Boost | libraries, this leaves it up to the user, anyway.
>
> This sounds 'best practice'.  If others agree, can it be added to the
> guidelines?

It sounds good in theory, but I've never been comfortable living with it. 
I know others do, but in my experience, especially with the MS compiler,
the highest warning level produces a LOT of meaningless diagnostics which
can be very difficult to eliminate... even with pragmas.  As a "best
practice suggestion", it's a great idea... as a requirement, I'd have to
voice an opinion against.

-- 
William E. Kempf