On 12/01/2008, Jonathan Wakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/01/2008, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Here is an initial patch implementing some of your proposals. I used > > pederror as the name of the function. That is, it is an error unless > > fpermissive is given. > > These errors should be independent of -pedantic* unless the if > (pedantic) check is also present in the code, but that's a special > case. Have I understood the intention correctly?
Actually, I didn't understand that we wanted to separate fpermissive and pedantic-errors completely. (Notice that the internal declaration/definition of fpermissive actually mentions pedantic.) But I agree with you: they should be unrelated. > I don't really like the name permerror either though, relaxable_error > is accurate but not great either. I actually like permerror better than the alternative permissive_error. I think those two are the only ones that make sense. > Thanks for doing this - I agree with your other decisions about what > should be a pedward or a pederror/whatever in e.g. lex.c and parser.c Your information above was very helpful. But I am still not sure about the rest of pedwarns. Cheers, Manuel.
