From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamboostorgtrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-13 17:48:04
"Steven Watanabe" <steven_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> No. The compiler will only generate the /declarations/ if they are not
> See section 12.8 of the standard.
Ah yes, I was missing something.
>> I ask again: If you really do care so much about these warnings then why
>> don't you simply reenable them after including the headers that disable
>> them? As Bo has mentioned, chances are that other headers that you
>> also disable these warnings.
> Most users including myself don't want to search
> headers just to find what warnings they need to turn
> back on.
The warnings were originally permanently disabled under the assumption that
they cannot be avoided otherwise (this assumption might be wrong according
to Yuval and Peter but lets put that aside for the moment). I still believe
that only a small minority of the users cares about these warnings, I
therefore maintain my assertion that setting the defaults such that this
minority needs to do additional work as opposed to the vast majority was the
right thing to do.
Now, I do agree that avoiding warnings is usually better than disabling them
(temporary or otherwise). So, if it turns out that they can be avoided I
will change the headers accordingly, as long as this does not require
additional work by library users.
> The fact that some other headers turn off
> the warnings is no excuse. They should be fixed too, IMO.
Excuse or not, the permanent suppression of these warnings by other headers
and the lack of equivalent warnings in other compilers just shows that the
value of these warnings is quite limited.
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk