Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?

Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-06 20:37:48

on Wed Nov 04 2009, joel <joel.falcou-AT-lri.fr> wrote:

> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> I would remove -pedantic, but otherwise, it's a very good idea. Unfortunately,
>> recent discussion left me with the impression that few folks care.
>>   
> They def. should care. I am all for this proposal too.

As long as it doesn't force us to do stupid things, like add a virtual
destructor just because something is used as an implementation-detail
base class, I'm all for making warnings errors and fixing all of them.
The big problem is that the definition of "stupid" is subjective.  For
example, any set of warnings that forced me to write

         if (0 == i)

instead of

         if (i == 0)

would make coding a lot less fun for me.  I guess I would be willing to
submit to it, for the sake of Boost, if we decided on something that.
So I guess we'll just have to try it and see how much pain it causes.

-- 
Dave Abrahams           Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com