Hi, Rob Stewart wrote:
On May 19, 2014 11:26:49 AM EDT, Adam Wulkiewicz <adam.wulkiewicz@gmail.com> wrote:
Then probably also
boost::ignore_unused_variable(v1) ; boost::ignore_unused_variables(v1, v2, v3);
for consistency. Actually, I'd favor ignore_unused(). I see no reason for "variable" to be in the name. If you use a macro, then you'd need to distinguish between TYPEDEFs and VARIABLEs.
I like those new names but don't forget that function ignore_unused_variable_warning() is already used around Boost. Grep shows ~600 uses in the code of various libraries and ~100 in the docs. And to be honest, I like this long name. When I read it I have an impression that it's not a part of the algorithm. But maybe I got used to it. I'm also curious what the author/maintainer of ConceptCheck thinks about it? Jeremy are you reading this thread? Regards, Adam