Subject: Re: [boost] [concept_check] Standalone boost::ignore_unused_variable_warning()
From: Adam Wulkiewicz (adam.wulkiewicz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-31 08:18:41
2014-05-20 12:45 GMT+02:00 Adam Wulkiewicz <adam.wulkiewicz_at_[hidden]>:
> Rob Stewart wrote:
>> On May 19, 2014 11:26:49 AM EDT, Adam Wulkiewicz <
>> adam.wulkiewicz_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Then probably also
>>> boost::ignore_unused_variable(v1) ;
>>> boost::ignore_unused_variables(v1, v2, v3);
>>> for consistency.
>> Actually, I'd favor ignore_unused(). I see no reason for "variable" to be
>> in the name. If you use a macro, then you'd need to distinguish between
>> TYPEDEFs and VARIABLEs.
> I like those new names but don't forget that function
> ignore_unused_variable_warning() is already used around Boost. Grep shows
> ~600 uses in the code of various libraries and ~100 in the docs.
> And to be honest, I like this long name. When I read it I have an
> impression that it's not a part of the algorithm. But maybe I got used to
Ok, lets finalize this!
So, do you think we should:
1. Pick the new names and leave boost::ignore_unused_variable_warning() in
2. Pick the new names and move the old implementation from Boost.Concept to
the same place?
3. Use the old name and remove the old implementation from Boost.Concept?
Btw, Rob I think your proposal is very elegant:
boost::ignore_unused(v1, v2, v3);
boost::ignore_unused<T1, T2, T3>();
> I'm also curious what the author/maintainer of ConceptCheck thinks about
> it? Jeremy are you reading this thread?
I guess not.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk