From: Stefan Slapeta (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-02 07:30:11
John Maddock wrote:
>
> The trouble is, who decides which warnings get suppressed?
>
IMO a library like boost should IN GENERAL not supress any!
[...]
> And yes, many of the common, annoying warnings do sometimes result in
> genuine fixes to code. I'm sure this will be true of the new "deprecated"
> warnings as well, even though they are truly annoying in many cases.
>
Yes, yes and yes. However, my question was not if it's good to ignore
warnings or not.
I'm very concerned about releasing a new boost library (1.33.1) that
prints a bunch of warnings _in it's own code_ on one of the most popular
compilers which definitely communicate to the users that there could be
something wrong with this code.
> So... while we clearly need a policy to deal with this, I would rather it
> was something that encouraged authors to "do the right thing", which
> probably varies case by case. It would also help if Microsoft had more
> documentation on this: anyone know how to mark a user defined iterator as
> "unbounded" for example?
>
I'm sure boost needs a policy for that but I'm also sure there has to be
done something _now_ for 1.33.1 regardless of whatever decision is made
to eliminate these warnings properly somewhere in the future.
Stefan