Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Zachary Turner (divisortheory_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-04 21:50:52
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]>wrote:
> It would certainly be a good thing if Boost compiled without warnings.
> However, I do not think that fixing all warnings would significantly reduce
> the number of bugs. Realistically, the vast majority of the warnings that
> we have to deal with are spurious. I am not convinced that tracing through
> all the noise from a dozen different compilers is worth the effort from
> standpoint. As far as I am concerned, the primary reason for eliminating
> warnings is that they are annoying to users.
> In Christ,
> Steven Watanabe
Well, they make the library physically unusable for some users, which is a
pretty big deal. I don't know how prevalent this practice is in the
industry but I know that I've worked at more than one company where you just
aren't allowed to check in code that has warnings in it period. And it's
not like you can just take a poll of how many people this affects, because
if it does affect someone they certainly aren't here reading this mailing
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk