Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?

Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Bo Persson (bop_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-07 08:27:05

Robert Ramey wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> on Wed Nov 04 2009, "John Maddock" <john-AT-johnmaddock.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>> That won't work well for a test-runner will it?  On the first
>>>> warning, the build will fail.  It would be better to have a
>>>> report of all warnings that must be addressed.
>
> FWIW - I've always made an effort to minimize or eliminate warnings
> in the serialization library.
>
> By the most phantastic of coincidences, a user reported a track
> item that including
> headers provokes a large number of warnings with msvc when warning
> level 4 is used.
> (I use level 3).  It turns out that the problem is the compiler
> cannot create a default
> constructor and assignment operator when a class has a const
> member.  No matter
> that the classes are derived from boost::noncopyable and No matter
> that non of the tests copy or assign the classes in question.  So to
> really fix this
> boost::noncopyable will need to be replaced with something else and
> that will have to be documented and maybe even mini-reviewed.  So 
> there
> is going to be a lot more here than meets the eye.
>

This is exactly one of the warnings that Boost could document as a 
"silly warning", that developers are assumed to disable.

Potential users would then know - up front - whether their policy 
allows them to use Boost or not. And current users can check that the 
next release has a compatible policy, before upgrading.

Bo Persson