Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com> writes:
John Maddock wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
Boost Inspection Report Run Date: 00:02:50 UTC, Sunday 16 July 2006
Making the regex smart enough to understand C++ comments, reliably, is not easy. So the next best thing... I expanded the set of content tags one can put in files to avoid test:
boostinspect:nocopyright boostinspect:nocrlf boostinspect:nolicense boostinspect:nolink boostinspect:nominmax boostinspect:notab
I've also shortened the amount of output. And split the emails into two parts: license+copyright and the rest of the checks. The way I shortened the output should also make it easy to quickly search for types of errors.
The inspection report has duly noted that the current thread library doesn't come under the BSL. This is the main reason for the thread rewrite effort currently underway. How do we mark the existing files, so they won't cause so much noise in the report? Do we just add // boostinspect::nolicense to the top of each file? Anthony -- Anthony Williams Software Developer Just Software Solutions Ltd http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk