| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Giovanni Bajo | Sent: 18 February 2004 09:00 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: [boost] Re: FC++ Formal review | | Paul A Bristow wrote: | > It would be nice to reduce warning noise (provided it is not too much trouble). | | If and only if the warning is not bogus. Otherwise, it should | be shut off at compiler level. MSVC is known to produce a few | bogus warnings. | | For instance, GCC has -Wshadow. If you do that, you can't | call a local variable "int y1;" because it will emit a | warning as it shadows "double y1(double)" in math.h. So what, | this is what I meant. I am sure the warning can be useful in | many other contexts, but we can't ask people to fix the code for this. If it isn't too much trouble, IMHO we SHOULD encourage people to fix this. | | > Msvc 7.1 (warnings level 4, no language extensions aka strict) | > produces some warning 'noise' at: const T operator*() const { return l.head(); } | > "qualifier applied to function type has no meaning; ignored | | See DR295 (http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#295). | I think this warning is bogus. | > However, this is a level 1 warning, so Microsoft obviously believe it is wrong C++. | It is, strictly speaking, but there is a DR for it. | I'm not sure it's worth a code fix. pragma warning disable will do it. I am sure you are right - but meanwhile it is a significant convenience for users to have a fix of some sort, if only to document that it isn't a problem, for example: #ifdef BOOST_MSVC # pragma warning (disable : 4180)// qualifier applied to function type has no meaning; ignored #endif Without this small fix, almost all use of FC++ will produce plenty of warning messages, which will distract from other useful warnings. Paul Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830 +44 7714 330204 mailto: pbristow@hetp.u-net.com