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

Subject: Re: [boost] [warnings] Are warnings acceptable artifactsfrom builds?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-08 17:03:38

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Kenny Riddile<kfriddile_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Emil Dotchevski 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.
>>
> 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.

Yes, so don't look at any warnings in Boost.Exception :P

Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.
http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode