Re: [boost] [warnings] Are warnings acceptable artifactsfrom builds?

Subject: Re: [boost] [warnings] Are warnings acceptable artifactsfrom builds?
From: Kenny Riddile (kfriddile_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-08 16:44:02

Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:14 PM, vicente.botet<vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I think that warnings must be fixed when the needed work is not huge. It will be great if Boost defined which warning must be fixed and which ones are allowed. When a warning is allowed and not fixed a comment on the line could help users to know if the warning is know (will not be fixed)  or if it is a new one. In this way the author will compare the effort to fix it or add the comment.
> 
> I disagree. Warnings are a personal conversation between the compiler
> and the author of the code. They are nobody else's business.
> 
> Emil Dotchevski
> Reverge Studios, Inc.
> http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 
That statement seems to conflict with your argument against 
fixing/silencing warnings in library code.  For example, I am not the 
author of Boost.Exception, therefore any warnings emitted by it are none 
of my business.  According to what you just said, the only person who 
should ever see warnings emitted by Boost.Exception is you.