on Wed Nov 04 2009, "Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart-AT-sig.com> wrote:
John Maddock wrote:
I'm *not* saying we should do this for 1.41, but should we have an official policy regarding compiler warnings and which ones we regard as "failures"?
If Boost documents the warnings settings used for each compiler, then all maintainers will have a consistent target while users know exactly what to expect. Obviously, individual maintainers may use stricter settings or cater to clients that do, but a minimum, consistent, documented policy would be highly useful for all concerned.
Hear, hear! I'd like it if we could choose a policy that could possibly work but might be too strict, with the understanding that we can decide by consensus to selectively weaken it if the policy presents a problem for any specific library.
There should also be some policies about the sorts of warnings that are considered nuisance and will not be addressed.
...or *need* not be addressed. IMO, any library author is free to jump through as many extra hoops as he likes to suppress nuisances, but users shouldn't expect them to. -- Dave Abrahams Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com