Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Towards a Warning free code policy proposal
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-08-30 22:55:30

On 08/30/2010 11:00 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> I don't know about other compilers, but if there are similar tricks
>> for them, they can be applied on user's side just as well as on
>> Boost's side.
> That means every user that wants that behavior must create a set of
> local headers to include before Boost headers in order to get the
> surrounding pragmas or whatever. That's not very polite, but I
> suppose if the assumption is that few have that problem/concern, then
> they ought to pay for the trouble rather than force the Boost
> maintainers to do so. Unfortunately, Boost libraries vary from
> release to release, so maintaining a parallel set of headers is
> rather cumbersome for library users.

Well, it doesn't _require_ the headers. The common practice in Windows
development is to have StdAfx.h, which is used to generate pch. Most
third party headers are included there, so users can simply wrap all
Boost includes in the project with pragmas in StdAfx.h. That's what I
sometimes do.

My point is that the warning-free requirement (at high levels) seems
quite specific and, to my mind, quite pointless. Additionally,
suppressing all warnings in all Boost headers is (a) compiler-specific,
(b) tedious and (c) may not be what the user actually wants. Therefore
let the users decide what and how to do about warnings.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at