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question: Should we remove the outdated runs?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?
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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk