From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-17 20:09:19
At 05:38 PM 11/17/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>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
>> >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?
You've already given examples of "perfectly good code" that gets flagged
with that warning. I'd say that makes the shadow warning a non-starter for
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk