[boost] Re: BOOST_STATIC_WARNING ?

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-20 05:49:13

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:49:42 -0400, Daryle Walker <dwalker07_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 9:59 PM, David Abrahams wrote:

>> Slightly.  They are still "non-portable constructions made up by
>> compiler makers."
>
>As I understand it, the #include directive dumps the contents of a file 
>found from the standard (<>) and/or user ("") header space.  The only 
>degrees of variance is how the mapping of header names to files/sources 
>occurs and how the standard headers are handled.

Really?

http://www.google.com/groups?threadm=plfbev89vgf08s0o3848bjssetqtqn0at9%404ax.com

Also, I have resisted once but now you want to make me suffer :-)

>From another post in this thread:

>Warnings are completely non-portable, since:

>1.	They have no official standing in the standard, just errors do
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Really?

>[...]
>3.	They are 100% legal code, the vendor just doesn't like it

Really?

>Equating the 
>implementation-defined parts of #include to the warning concept, which 
>has no official standing, is a gross misrepresentation.

I don't think Dave was really equating. He was probably just saying
that features not exactly specified, or not specified at all, by the
standard can still be useful in practice.

Not that I'm for BOOST_STATIC_WARNING, just to avoid such erroneous
information about what is standard and what is not.

Genny.