Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-05 14:06:17
Sid Sacek wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
>>> [ Steven Watanabe wrote ]
>>> I am not convinced that tracing through all the noise from a dozen
>>> different compilers is worth the effort from that standpoint.
>>> As far as I am concerned, the primary reason for eliminating
>>> warnings is that they are annoying to users.
> Don't you believe that with the right syntax a coder can get every compiler to become happy?
Yes, but the syntax required may not make me happy when I have to read it.
> I understand that a coder cannot make adjustments to their code if they don't know about the warnings, but once they learn about them, the practice of making corrections not only cleans up their existing code but also enlightens them about future coding styles.
> I don't know if warnings are just a nuisance. I mean, understanding them always leads to deeper a understanding of what the program is really doing.
The point is not that fixing warnings would not make Boost better.
I'm saying that if the correctness of Boost were the only consideration,
the effort spent dealing with warnings could probably be better spent
in other ways (Such as dealing with the >850 open trac tickets).
The main problem with warnings is not that they indicate bugs, so
much as that they make the code less usable because of the noise
that they generate for users.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk