From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-08 13:29:38
David Abrahams wrote:
> Yuval Ronen <ronen_yuval_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>
>>This is a whole new ball game. Wrapping all Boost code in pragma guard
>>has its advantages and disadvantages. I won't argue here in favour or
>>against it. All I'm saying that invoking bjam to compile Boost itself,
>>shouldn't emit any warnings. This is something that I can't imagine
>>anyone saying is wrong.
>
>
> No disagreement with that. However, you missed this part of the
> discussion *before* the release:
>
> http://listarchives.boost.org/Archives/boost/2005/11/96241.php
>
> where arguments like this one apparently won out:
>
> http://listarchives.boost.org/Archives/boost/2005/11/96212.php
Nothing in what I said contradicts these winning arguments. Defining
_SCL_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE (or whatever the macro is) in a Boost config
file, as was suggested and rejected in the second link, is far far more
drastic then my simple suggestion. All I said was that building Boost
itself should define this macro (by default!) to supress these
examined-by-us-and-decided-to-be-harmless warnings. If anyone thinks of
another way to supress these warning, then by all means, go for it. I
don't care. All I preach for is a clean, welcoming Boost installation.
Something that won't give users the (extremely) wrong feeling of sloppy
code.
There is nothing here that affects users code, getting involved in
politics, or taking a stand in a controversial matter.
On the other, I feel this discussion has grown much more than I
anticipated. I have no wish to become a nagging burden on this mailing
list, so I'll just shut up. If I couldn't convince you by now, then I
guess I just can't do it, or maybe even worse, God forbid, that I'm
wrong... ;-)
Regards,
Yuval