From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-17 17:38:35
Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
> At 10:57 AM 11/16/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
> >I am reluctant to cater to every possible warning. This is an example
> >of one which often flags perfectly good code.
> When it is required that code compile without triggering warning X, in
> effect the C++ language has been changed to no longer allow whatever
> is triggering X.
> That's OK, if X is virtually always a programming problem. But if it
> is sometimes perfectly good code, then I wouldn't want to see that
> warning enabled.
> > Should we try to come
> >to a concensus about this? Should we go the other direction, and
> >simply enable all warnings in our Boost.Build toolsets?
> No. Only enable warnings for conditions which are actually errors the
> overwhelming majority of the time.
So, where does the shadow warning fall?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk