Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-30 20:45:32

At 10:12 AM 4/30/2003, Douglas Gregor wrote:

><enters grumpy old developer mode>
>I agree that it would be great from the user's point of view if all of
>Boost compiled without warnings, but I'm afraid a no-warnings policy will
>make the whack-a-mole game all that much worse. As it stands, some Boost
>code is brittle on certain compilers: tweak in one place, and it breaks
>a compiler; fix for that compiler and you've broken another compiler.

Pete Becker has pointed out that a no-warnings policy effectively redefines
the language by eliminating uses that are actually valid C++. The
redefinition is being done not by a standards body, but by individual
compiler vendors, who often change what constitutes a warning from release
to release.

For Boost, eliminating all warnings would mean eliminating all warnings
from recent versions of a number of compilers. That doesn't seem

OTOH, there are a number of specific warnings we probably can agree are
worrisome enough that we never want to see them. Maybe we should generally
not report warnings, but do report the agreed upon set of warnings and
pester Boost developers to clear them.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at