Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-04 16:04:08

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Vladimir Prus
<vladimir_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>>> Unfortunately,
>>> recent discussion left me with the impression that few folks care.
>> It is not about caring, once again the argument is about a personal
>> preference: is the ugliness and decreased readability that is often
>> required to silence a warning reasonable.
> I suggest we don't talk in the abstract. Once a specific set of warning
> options, together with -Werror is in place, you can raise your concerns
> about any particular warning emitted by any particular compiler, and hopefully,
> some per-warning-kind agreement can be reached.

I agree that the only way warnings can be addressed effectively is to
use -Werror. On the other hand, the idea that a warning is the same as
an error challenges my world view. :)

I understand why you say that we can't talk in the abstract. It's
downright silly not to fix certain "good" warnings and we, as a
community, definitely can agree on a reasonable definition of "good".

However this will not address the issue at hand, which is that people
who use higher warning levels will see tons of warnings. A better
attitude is

Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at