Robert Dailey wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 3:11 PM, Eric Niebler <eric@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
I'm against Boost globally disabling any warnings. IMO, it's really the user's call.
I believe boost should keep itself clean, whether that means fixing warnings properly or hiding them via #pragma directives. It's my responsibility to hide my own warnings in my own source files, not in boosts. That's just my opinion on the subject of warnings.
An organization may have a policy to disallow use of "unsafe" constructs that could lead to unchecked buffer overflows. They would want actually want to know if Boost headers were using raw pointers as output iterators, for instance. If Boost disables these warnings for its own code, it presents a barrier to adoption for these organizations. If Boost adopts a policy whereby noisy warnings are disabled for Boost code, there should at least be a well-documented method for re-enabling these warnings for the people who care about them. The concern is that, since nobody reads the docs, and since the lack of warnings actually hides the issue, it could lead to a false sense of security. It seems like the wrong default to me. -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com