Subject: Re: [boost] [warnings] Are warnings acceptable artifacts from builds?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-09 02:42:45
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Vladimir Prus<vladimir_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Christopher
>> Currie<christopher_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Emil Dotchevski<emildotchevski_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> I think that you assume that the warning is reasonable and easy to
>>>> fix, as with most warnings that could be silenced with casts. A lot of
>>>> times, fixing such warnings is common sense. In that case, just a note
>>>> to the library developer would be enough to have it fixed.
>>>> But you can't generalize from this, to "all warnings should be silenced."
>>> On the other hand, many people work in environments where there is a
>>> local policy that warnings will be treated as errors. If library code
>>> emits warnings, the build breaks and the library is unusable.
>> I agree this is a very strong argument, and you're right that even
>> though such policy is unreasonable, it may render a library basically
> Why is such policy unreasonable?
I think you misunderstood my point. What I called unreasonable in the
text you're quoting is environments (e.g. companies people use Boost
at) where there is a requirement to treat warnings as errors.
So I was agreeing that the existence of such
environments--unreasonable as they are--is a strong argument for
zero-warning policy in Boost.
Reverge Studios, Inc.