Subject: Re: [boost] Towards a Warning free code policy proposal
From: Emil Dotchevski (emil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-08-28 02:04:57
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> vicente.botet wrote:
>> Last year there where two long threads about Boost Warning
>> policy. If I'm not wrong nothing was concluded. I think that
>> we can have two warning policies: one respect to the Boost
>> users and one internal for Boost developement.
> The problem I foresee is that many warnings won't be triggered or useful until templates are instantiated by users with specific types.
I haven't done any tests but I'm assuming that #pragma GCC
system_header is smart wrt this issue (for some definition of smart)
because this pragma is used in their STL implementation headers, with
the same desired effect and the same concerns.
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