Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?

Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-07 08:37:10

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:37 PM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> 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.

That's my feeling too. From the perspective of release management, I'm
willing to delay 1.41.0 long enough for a second beta to clear as many
warnings as possible during the next week. But I don't want to disrupt
the whole release schedule.

And I totally agree that we don't want to force developers to write
stupid code, and we have to acknowledge that each developer will have
a somewhat different definition of "stupid code".

So, yes, let's give it a try and see where it takes us.

--Beman