Re: [boost] Boost inspection notification (2006-07-16/RC_1_34_0)

From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-18 04:48:20

Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> writes:

> John Maddock wrote:
>> Rene Rivera wrote:
>>>> Boost Inspection Report
>>>> Run Date: 00:02:50 UTC, Sunday 16 July 2006

> Making the regex smart enough to understand C++ comments, reliably, is 
> not easy. So the next best thing... I expanded the set of content tags 
> one can put in files to avoid test:
>
>    boostinspect:nocopyright
>    boostinspect:nocrlf
>    boostinspect:nolicense
>    boostinspect:nolink
>    boostinspect:nominmax
>    boostinspect:notab
>
> I've also shortened the amount of output. And split the emails into two 
> parts: license+copyright and the rest of the checks. The way I shortened 
> the output should also make it easy to quickly search for types of errors.

The inspection report has duly noted that the current thread library doesn't
come under the BSL. This is the main reason for the thread rewrite effort
currently underway. How do we mark the existing files, so they won't cause so
much noise in the report? Do we just add

// boostinspect::nolicense

to the top of each file?

Anthony
-- 
Anthony Williams
Software Developer
Just Software Solutions Ltd
http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk