When using Microsoft GSL 0.1.2.1 it seems that we currently need to work around the impact of compiler checking improvements since Microsoft GSL was originally released.
This could be professionally embarrassing since the whole philosophy being promoted here is that all warnings can and should be addressed by a rework, or expressly accepted/commented and locally accepted once on each line affected. At least that's best practice as I understand it. This is already a hard sell.
So my question is IS THERE A PLAN/TIMETABLE to revise the gsl headers (C++14 days) to pass the current compiler full checks? Otherwise while promoting GSL we have to defend it against accusations of hypocracy. "Don't do as we do. Do as we say". I appreciate its a constantly moving target but I think its time to consider, and I'd like to know the plans.
Meanwhile (for my code) I've found this to be a practical workround.
gsl.zip
When using Microsoft GSL 0.1.2.1 it seems that we currently need to work around the impact of compiler checking improvements since Microsoft GSL was originally released.
This could be professionally embarrassing since the whole philosophy being promoted here is that all warnings can and should be addressed by a rework, or expressly accepted/commented and locally accepted once on each line affected. At least that's best practice as I understand it. This is already a hard sell.
So my question is IS THERE A PLAN/TIMETABLE to revise the gsl headers (C++14 days) to pass the current compiler full checks? Otherwise while promoting GSL we have to defend it against accusations of hypocracy. "Don't do as we do. Do as we say". I appreciate its a constantly moving target but I think its time to consider, and I'd like to know the plans.
Meanwhile (for my code) I've found this to be a practical workround.
gsl.zip