Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-05 05:51:13
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On
> Mateusz Loskot
> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 12:05 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
> - do not touch code, but comment/document the status and give reason why no
action is to be taken.
Surely *documenting* is the *really* important reason for suppressing warnings.
The library maintainer is saying:
" OK, I've heard this warning, looked the code and decided that it isn't an
issue, and so I've quieted it locally."
This should allow the library users to run at high warning level (even treating
warnings as errors if they wish) and yet get warnings from their own code - and
they must make similar decisions about their own warnings.
And it avoids the annoyance, worry and risk of missing your own warnings in the
blizzard of library warnings that you often get - making build logs useless
because you can see the wood for the trees.
--- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk