<datapoints> MSDN January 2002 contains only the 'old' level 1 definition. Q113417 from that same source says the compiler generates the warning with both the /Ze and /Za switches. The 'online' MSDN contains only the level 3 definition. You're running SP3 and I'm running SP5. </datapoints> THEREFORE: #pragma warning(disable : 4097) // ;) #include #pragma warning(default : 4097) Thanks for the input. "Jim.Hyslop" ch.com> cc: Subject: RE: [Boost-Users] bind: I just keep trying... 09/26/2002 01:01 PM Please respond to Boost-Users dick.bridges@tais.com [mailto:dick.bridges@tais.com] wrote:

Well, that helped A LOT. The only warnings I get now are:

<warnings> c:\boost\function.hpp(451) : warning C4097: typedef-name 'base_type' used as synonym for class-name 'function::function1'

The warning level is 4: I'm paranoid. Can these safely be ignored?

According to the MSDN: ---------------- begin quote from MSDN ----------------------------- Compiler Warning (level 3) C4097 typedef-name 'identifier1' used as synonym for class-name 'identifier2' A typedef name which names a class is itself a class name. However, only a class declared without a tag can be named. In the following line of code the typedef name P is promoted to class name but Q is not. typedef struct { int member; } P, Q; Q remains a normal typedef name and a synonym for the class. The following example causes this warning: typedef struct _T { int i; } T; struct U : T { int j; }; // warning struct V : _T { int j; }; // OK ------------------------ end quote from MSDN ------------------------- However, when I tried compiling the example, MSVC6 SP3 at warning level 4 was completely silent. So I'm really confused now - is it a problem or not? My instinct says no, but I've been wrong before. -- Jim Info: http://www.boost.org Wiki: http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl Unsubscribe: mailto:boost-users-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/