Re: [Boost-users] [BULK] Re: [range] From 1.33.0 gives newwarningvs 1.32
-----Original Message----- From: boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of David Abrahams Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 2:55 PM To: boost-users@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [BULK] Re: [range] From 1.33.0 gives newwarningvs 1.32
Thorsten, the difference is in fragility over time with maintenance. That's why the compiler issues the warning. Any decent beginner's book on C++ will advise you to eschew all casts, and prefer the new-style ones. Do you really need to have the fundamentals of good C++ programming practice explained?
Incidentally, if you find that the proper C++ construct is "less portable. somehow." you should use BOOST_WORKAROUND to isolate the compiler for which it fails to work, if only so that the reason for the workaround is documented.
I thought the same thing but my name isnt Dave Abrahams and I don't have an important email address. Doh.
"Sohail Somani"
-----Original Message----- From: boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of David Abrahams
Incidentally, if you find that the proper C++ construct is "less portable. somehow." you should use BOOST_WORKAROUND to isolate the compiler for which it fails to work, if only so that the reason for the workaround is documented.
I thought the same thing but my name isnt Dave Abrahams and I don't have an important email address. Doh.
Well, your opinion is always welcome anyway :-) Porting something to 10+ compilers is not always super easy. And changing something that might break a regression is always something I'm a bit reluctant to do. Yes, I've seen compilers where a reinterpret_cast + const_cast did not do what c-style cast would do. Don't ask me why. :-) Anyway, let's see if it breaks anything. -Thorsten
participants (2)
-
Sohail Somani -
Thorsten Ottosen