[boost] Re: Re: FC++ Formal review - some initial results/impressions

From: Giovanni Bajo (giovannibajo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-19 09:11:52

Boost wrote:

> I am sure you are right - but meanwhile it is
> a significant convenience for users to have a fix
> of some sort, if only to document that it isn't a
> problem, for example:
>
> #ifdef BOOST_MSVC
> #  pragma warning (disable : 4180)// qualifier applied to function
> type
> has no meaning; ignored
> #endif
>
> Without this small fix, almost all use of FC++ will produce plenty of
> warning messages, which will distract from other useful warnings.

I'm not opposing to a fix like this: this basically says that MSVC is
generating a bogus warning and we're not going to care about it. I think this
one (together with a pragma warning push/pop guard pair) is more than ok for
the library.

What I strongly oppose is to modify the library code to workaround such a
warning.
-- 
Giovanni Bajo