On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:10 PM Rob Stewart via Boost
On November 19, 2018 4:01:45 PM EST, Edward Diener via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Warning free is a nice ideal, but the truth is more complicated. Many warnings are not really about possible coding mishaps but about a sort of lint-like standard which compilers now want to enforce and have nothing to do with correct C++ code. Other warnings are simply erroneous, as is prevalent most everywhere in the current default VC++ preprocessor. Eliminate even the first class of warnings is often a fool's errand AFAIAC. All one ends up doing is adding completely unnecessary code restrictions to what is perfectly acceptable C++ code.
That's a broad claim not generally borne out in my experience.
This is a broad claim borne out by my experience. [ Note - I'm a fan of most warnings. Some of them, though, should DIAF ] For example, should the following code cause a warning to be emitted? auto p = std::make_unique<unsigned char>(0); At least one popular compiler warns on this code, complaining about a truncation from int --> unsigned char, and a possible loss of data. We spent a lot of time and effort in Boost.DateTime with this. See https://github.com/boostorg/date_time/pull/50 and others. -- Marshall