Hi, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> 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. > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2012-02/msg00080.html 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? :-) Thanks, Ludo’.
