[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, stable-2.0, updated. v2.0.6-97-ge8
Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, stable-2.0, updated. v2.0.6-97-ge8772a9
Fri, 30 Nov 2012 21:18:08 +0100
Gnus/5.130005 (Ma Gnus v0.5) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux)
Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> skribis:
> Sorry for not noticing this earlier, but I should mention that although
> I use some of the warnings infrastructure for reporting the
> 'duplicate-case-datum' and 'bad-case-datum' warnings, I never check for
> those warning flags. The warnings are reported unconditionally.
Oops, I had overlooked that.
> I had started to work on a patch set to make them conditional, but that
> work was halted due to an unresolved disagreement about how warnings
> should be specified.
As an aside, it’s really hard for me to deal with work that’s “halted”.
I’d rather resolve them quickly, than just let them be forgotten, and
eventually revive them.
> I felt, and continue to strongly feel, that we should not require the
> user to provide a complete list of warning types that they want. If we
> do that, then users will be forced to hard-code that list into their
> build systems (and/or code that uses 'compile'). If they do this, then
> whenever we add a new warning type, no one will see the new warnings
> until they modify their build system.
> Can we revisit this issue?
Sure. Can you reply to my last message in the thread? :-)