On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Michael Fawcett<michael.fawcett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Emil Dotchevski<emildotchevski@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:14 PM, vicente.botet<vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
I think that warnings must be fixed when the needed work is not huge. It will be great if Boost defined which warning must be fixed and which ones are allowed. When a warning is allowed and not fixed a comment on the line could help users to know if the warning is know (will not be fixed) or if it is a new one. In this way the author will compare the effort to fix it or add the comment.
I disagree. Warnings are a personal conversation between the compiler and the author of the code. They are nobody else's business.
Frankly, after just having reviewed (by using) a library that spit out 60+ warnings resulting in hundreds of kilobytes worth of warning messages, I have to disagree. Those warnings become my business when I have to wade through them just to find the bloody error message.
I agree that warnings are annoying; the problem is that a compiler may choose to warn about anything at all, this is not subject to any specifications. What if a compiler warns about lines being longer than 80 characters? I'd think that most would agree that such a warning is unreasonable. So the question is whether a warning is reasonable or not, which is subjective. Requiring warnings to be fixed is the same as requiring the library developer to agree with your own subjectively picked warnings level. I find that rather rude (it's not unreasonable to ask politely, of course.) Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode