On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:58 AM, John Maddock <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> wrote:
Nod. I don't think anyone is suggesting that all of boost be warning free with all possible compilers, that just wouldn't be possible IMO.
It is possible. For me, the bottom line from this discussion is that #pragma warning and #pragma GCC system_header are my best friends. :)
But does that mean that we shouldn't try to do better with the most popular tools?
I think first we need to figure out what's the goal of removing warnings: is it to impose higher warning level to developers, or to provide warning-free user experience.
If it is the former, I find it inappropriate to cherrypick some warnings *we* consider silly and tell the user, you know what, we're not doing anything about these particular ones, gg. If I work at a company that requires warning-free builds, one warning is one warning too many.
I meant latter, not former. Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode