Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-09 14:25:00
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Stewart, Robert
> <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > 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.
Either is certainly possible, but if there are established warning levels, it is reasonable to expect that level or stricter. A reviewer should be able to examine the library as any Boost user would. Why would following a warnings policy be different unless a specific exception were incorporated into the policy?
> > 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.
A reasonable conclusion is that the submitter chose to ignore established Boost norms and doesn't care about the effect on reviewers, your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.
If trying to test against the library produces myriad warnings at established Boost warning levels, as a Boost user should expect, the reviewer shouldn't judge the usability of the library highly.
Rob Stewart robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk