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
> Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>>> 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 http://www.zlib.net/zlib_faq.html#faq35.
Reverge Studios, Inc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk