RE: [boost] Re: time_duration bug in Boost 1.30.0

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-09 09:05:33

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:53:30 +0100, Paul A. Bristow wrote
> I have built the date examples OK, but I am getting a compile error 
> when trying to build the time_math.cpp example with MSVC 7.1 aka 
> .net 2003
> 
> I:/boost_1_30_0\boost\lexical_cast.hpp(147) : error C2679: binary 
> '<<' : no operator found which takes a right-hand operand of type 'const
>
> I am not clear if this is a problem in lexical_cast or in date_time. 
>  Should I wait for the 1.30.1 release or try to load an update?  Or 
> is this a new problem?

Sorry to be slow on the response.  Glad to see you got the fix for this, it
has bitten alot of people...
 
> PS There are also lots of confusing warnings, most, if not all, of 
> which I suspect could be casted away. It would be really nice to get 

I believe several of the warnings have been resolved in the current CVS...

> a clear compile, preferably in strict mode, because this code is 
> likely to be included by most user stuff, which will repeatedly 
> produce a host of junk warnings.

I'm happy to work on reducing the warnings in level 4, but unfortunately the
regression tests are not run with these settings.  Since I don't have access
to the .net compiler here it is difficult to get the needed feedback to
resolve them.  So if we want to make this a requirement we definitely need
regression tests to use this policy.

> (And other MS specific unhelpful warnings which could be dealt with by
> 
> #ifdef _MSC_VER  or BOOST_?
> #pragma warning (disable : 4800) // inefficient bool conversion?
> #endif
> 
> As a general point, is there any reason why 'known to be unhelpful' warnings
> like this cannot be disabled in Boost code?

I'd be fine with putting this in the config, but I could see some controversy
about this.  It isn't entirely clear to me which code is producing these, 
so maybe you can send me the details offlist and I can look into it.

Jeff