On Monday 16 April 2012 15:32:06 Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com>wrote:
IMHO, you are taking it too seriously. If you want to disable the call to the destructor, you typically declare it private or protected. Whether it is virtual or not is another story and irrelevant to the access restriction (which is actually what you're trying to impose).
The meaning of virtual is "this function is designed to be called through a base type pointer". This is simply not true for this code, it would be misleading and incorrect to use virtual in this case.
It doesn't matter if you can't call it anyway since it's protected.
And declaring it virtual doesn't make the code uglier. In fact, compared to all the machinery required to disable the warning for every compiler, it is a cleaner solution.
The "machinery" is needed anyway to disable all other warnings, and it is much cleaner than dealing with each individual warning emitted by the many compilers Boost is used with.
Besides, if a warning (any warning) escapes the "machinery", this is a bug that I want to fix. In this particular case, people say they get the warning but nobody has given me exact code that produces it.
The current machinery is applied header-wise and doesn't really clutter the code. I supposed this particular warning would be disabled for a particular class or expression (because disabling it globally is excessive).