From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-02 06:40:16
John Maddock wrote:
>The trouble is, who decides which warnings get suppressed?
>Or to put it another way, every warning needs a number one human eyeball to
>look over the code and decide whether there is an issue or not.
>And yes, many of the common, annoying warnings do sometimes result in
>genuine fixes to code. I'm sure this will be true of the new "deprecated"
>warnings as well, even though they are truly annoying in many cases.
>So... while we clearly need a policy to deal with this, I would rather it
>was something that encouraged authors to "do the right thing", which
>probably varies case by case. It would also help if Microsoft had more
>documentation on this: anyone know how to mark a user defined iterator as
>"unbounded" for example?
This would be a good thing to have in the wiki, where developers can work on
a database of known warnings in different compilers and how to fix them. I
am not sure on how to mark iterators as unbounded, but someone who does
could add that to the wiki.
It would also be a good idea to move this to official Boost document (a
"best practices" guide).
One problem with this: including standard headers. The Microsoft standard
libraries don't compile cleanly on level 4 warnings :( (e.g. the dead code
warning when including <vector> or <map>).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk