On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Vladimir Prus<vladimir@codesourcery.com> wrote:
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Christopher Currie<christopher@currie.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Emil Dotchevski<emildotchevski@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that you assume that the warning is reasonable and easy to fix, as with most warnings that could be silenced with casts. A lot of times, fixing such warnings is common sense. In that case, just a note to the library developer would be enough to have it fixed.
But you can't generalize from this, to "all warnings should be silenced."
On the other hand, many people work in environments where there is a local policy that warnings will be treated as errors. If library code emits warnings, the build breaks and the library is unusable.
I agree this is a very strong argument, and you're right that even though such policy is unreasonable, it may render a library basically unusable.
Why is such policy unreasonable?
I think you misunderstood my point. What I called unreasonable in the text you're quoting is environments (e.g. companies people use Boost at) where there is a requirement to treat warnings as errors. So I was agreeing that the existence of such environments--unreasonable as they are--is a strong argument for zero-warning policy in Boost. Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode