On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 at 13:27, Rowan Tommins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/03/2022 23:02, Patrick ALLAERT wrote: > > This is not far from the reason why I voted "no". > > > > I am not against the fact this warning becomes an error per se. I am just > > not very fan of cherry-picking an individual kind of problem (read: > > notice/warning/error/...) and changing it without a more global frame. > > > I have also voted no for similar reasons: the scope of this RFC appears > to be "all the places that are convenient", rather than "all the places > that are covered by the claimed rationale". > > [snip] > > None of this is even mentioned in the RFC, let alone justified. > I have voted no for the same reasons. Peter
