Re: [boost] Boost inspection notification (2006-09-28/RC_1_34_0) *X*

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-29 12:29:15

Roland Schwarz <roland.schwarz_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> Yeah, but be really careful, because there are only a few good ways
>> to use an unnamed namespace in a header.
>
> To be honest, I do not have the time at the moment to study this issue 
> in detail. (Altough I am aware of the ODR.) The inline files date back 
> to Bill Kempfs original thread implementation. 

Okay, definitely not time to change it right now.

> Since everything works
> I just thought to omit this warning. 

I think we should leave the warning intact so we know we need to
"study this issue in detail."

> It is mainly guarding inline
> function definitions. 

Why would one want to do that, I wonder?

> I will take care of this in the thread_rewrite.
> I do not want to make (possibly large) changes for the 1.34. But if
> you think it is better to leave the warning turned on for the time
> beeing, I'll revert.

If you're 100% sure you're going to rewrite the code and eliminate any
problems, I don't mind the idea of turning off the warning.  We should
just be sure we're being honest with ourselves, and not silencing
legitimate complaints.

> BTW.: a "fix" like the following I think will not be caught by inspect,
> while still potentially being able to violate ODR.
>
> namespace {
> #include <boost/foo.ipp>
> }
>
> True?

I don't know; why don't you try it?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com