Boost logo

Boost :

From: Daniel Frey (d.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-12 04:47:52


I saw a lot of new regression runs on various platforms. One obvious
question: Should we remove the outdated runs?

Now for the real reason of this message: One compiler (the SGI MIPSpro)
complains (with a warning) about:

cc-1234 CC: WARNING File = /net/cci/maurer/boost/libs/utility/operators_test.cpp, Line = 52
  Access control is not specified ("private" by default).

          : boost::operators<Wrapped1<T> >

The question is: Should we, for the sake of portability, support this
warning by requesting an explicit access control specifier whenever we
derive? Or is such a general coding guideline inappropriate because it's
too common that people omit it? At least I do this often as I think that
the default is obvious and although I don't have a good reason for it, I
also have no reason against it. Comments?

Regards, Daniel

PS: Would it make sense to have a "boost bug bashing week" or something
to fix some more bugs/regressions? Or do we wait for users to complain
and provide fixes?

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