From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-05 18:00:45
Robert Dailey wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2008 3:11 PM, Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I'm against Boost globally disabling any warnings. IMO, it's really the
>> user's call.
> I believe boost should keep itself clean, whether that means fixing warnings
> properly or hiding them via #pragma directives. It's my responsibility to
> hide my own warnings in my own source files, not in boosts. That's just my
> opinion on the subject of warnings.
An organization may have a policy to disallow use of "unsafe" constructs
that could lead to unchecked buffer overflows. They would want actually
want to know if Boost headers were using raw pointers as output
iterators, for instance. If Boost disables these warnings for its own
code, it presents a barrier to adoption for these organizations.
If Boost adopts a policy whereby noisy warnings are disabled for Boost
code, there should at least be a well-documented method for re-enabling
these warnings for the people who care about them. The concern is that,
since nobody reads the docs, and since the lack of warnings actually
hides the issue, it could lead to a false sense of security. It seems
like the wrong default to me.
-- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk