Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-09 13:45:24
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Daniel James wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Stewart, Robert
>> <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> > Daniel James wrote:
>> >> Currently, we don't even require that a library builds on
>> >> any specific
>> >> compilers, let alone warning free. What you're suggesting adds a
>> >> considerable burden on a developer - which is particularly
>> >> unfair if
>> >> the library is eventually rejected. Implementation issues
>> >> can be fixed
>> >> after the review and, in this case, I would hope it would
>> >> be with the
>> >> help of the boost community.
>> > It isn't unfair if the submitter understands a policy a priori.
>> How does understanding an unfair burden in advance make it fair?
> Determining whether a policy is unfair is subjective. If one considers,
> in this case, that zero warnings at some Boost-established warnings
> setting is important to demonstrating code quality and to make the
> job of reviewers as easy as possible, then it is a fair policy.
Alternatively, the reviewers could compile at lower warnings level.
Most likely they wouldn't even need to do that, because they will
simply build using the author scripts, which will likely produce a
build without warnings.
> If reviewers are expected to judge code quality and it produces
> myriad warnings with established warnings settings, what might
> reviewers conclude?
The only reasonable conclusion is that the author prefers a lower
warning level, or uses a different compiler. As far as I am concerned,
a library should be evaluated only based on its documented interface.
Reverge Studios, Inc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk