Paul A. Bristow said: > | -----Original Message----- > | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Terje Slettebų | > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 5:33 PM > | To: Boost mailing list > | Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Library Guidelines > | > | > May I suggest that we add to "Aim for ISO Standard C++ ..." > | > "Try to code so that compiles with 'strict' compiler settings ... | > | I use the highest warning level (4) for MSVC and Intel C++, and strict > mode | for the latter, to not ignore any warnings/remarks by default. > > | In the cpp-files, not headers, I then selectively disable > remarks/warnings that are > | harmless (and there's a lot of them), until it compiles without > | remarks/warnings. I think one should not get used to ignore warnings > in the | output, or one could easily miss some which _does_ matter, > which is why I | disable the ones that don't. > | > | In many cases, on level 4, there's _no_ practical way to turn off a | > remark/warning, without using #pragma. Therefore, I think it may be > better | to use a #pragma (in the cpp-file), than telling the user to > ignore the | remarks/warnings. In header-only libraries, like much of > the Boost | libraries, this leaves it up to the user, anyway. > > This sounds 'best practice'. If others agree, can it be added to the > guidelines?
It sounds good in theory, but I've never been comfortable living with it. I know others do, but in my experience, especially with the MS compiler, the highest warning level produces a LOT of meaningless diagnostics which can be very difficult to eliminate... even with pragmas. As a "best practice suggestion", it's a great idea... as a requirement, I'd have to voice an opinion against. -- William E. Kempf _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost