Re: [Boost-users] Boost 1.54.0 Header Warnings: Shadowed Variables

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Boost 1.54.0 Header Warnings: Shadowed Variables
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-12 21:20:54

On 11/12/2013 7:03 PM, Tom Browder wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Tom Browder <tom.browder_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:46 AM, John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> warning-free code, so Boost releases being warning-free would be a
>>>> very good thing.
>> ...
>>> I suggest you file bug reports regarding any problems
>>> you find: if the fix is trivial and they come with patches even better.
>
> Okay, I've downloaded and installed 1.55.0 and filed my first set of
> bugs (not all -Wshadow, five or so -Wundefs, too).  I will add some
> patches later (for the ones I think I can figure out), but quite a few
> are head-scratchers for me--that's why I wish you had a policy of
> checking with more warnings for releases.
>
> Ref the -Wshadow warning in particular:  IMHO, the obstinate and
> continued use of a shadowed name (just because one thinks one can get
> away with it) in a well-respected library like Boost is not good for
> business nor the author's reputation.

The last sentence is a pretty personal comment.

There is absolutely nothing in the C++ standard which prevents the 
situation to which you object. Why therefore bring in judgments like 
"obstinate", "can get away with it", "good for business", or "author's 
reputation" into it.