From: Matthias Troyer (troyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-22 16:11:33
On Nov 22, 2005, at 9:15 PM, Kim Barrett wrote:
> At 8:55 PM -0800 11/21/05, Robert Ramey wrote:
>> If this such a huge problem for you, why don't you just modify
>> your local copy and be done with it?
> I think you are missing my point. I've already addressed this locally
> (by adding the warning suppression option to our compiler
> and then filing a bug report against that configuration to remind
> us to
> change it back when the underlying problem is addressed).
> However, do you (and the rest of the boost community) really want to
> release this in it's current state? Should every development group
> gcc and the serialization library have to locally work around this?
> many queries about this are there going to be on the boost mailing
> between now and a release that addresses this? And how many potential
> users of the library are going to try it, get large numbers of
> and go elsewhere?
I would like to support this opinion. We have several libraries and
applications based on boost and usually get a large number of user
complaints for each warning produced when compiling our codes.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk