David Abrahams wrote:
Yuval Ronen <ronen_yuval@yahoo.com> writes:
This is a whole new ball game. Wrapping all Boost code in pragma guard has its advantages and disadvantages. I won't argue here in favour or against it. All I'm saying that invoking bjam to compile Boost itself, shouldn't emit any warnings. This is something that I can't imagine anyone saying is wrong.
No disagreement with that. However, you missed this part of the discussion *before* the release:
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2005/11/96241.php
where arguments like this one apparently won out:
Nothing in what I said contradicts these winning arguments. Defining _SCL_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE (or whatever the macro is) in a Boost config file, as was suggested and rejected in the second link, is far far more drastic then my simple suggestion. All I said was that building Boost itself should define this macro (by default!) to supress these examined-by-us-and-decided-to-be-harmless warnings. If anyone thinks of another way to supress these warning, then by all means, go for it. I don't care. All I preach for is a clean, welcoming Boost installation. Something that won't give users the (extremely) wrong feeling of sloppy code. There is nothing here that affects users code, getting involved in politics, or taking a stand in a controversial matter. On the other, I feel this discussion has grown much more than I anticipated. I have no wish to become a nagging burden on this mailing list, so I'll just shut up. If I couldn't convince you by now, then I guess I just can't do it, or maybe even worse, God forbid, that I'm wrong... ;-) Regards, Yuval