How about Go's... error on unused imports?

[Lutger]

Bill Baxter wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Justin Johansson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No, sorry I am not informed on D's policy about warnings
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. Ever wondered why that is?
>>>>
>>>> The policy is: there are no warnings.
>>>
>>> Probably more clear to say "all warnings are treated as errors."
>>>
>>> --bb
>>
>> Note there is no way to treat warnings as warnings, making those
>> 'warnings' just errors that can be turned on or off. Since there are no
>> warnings to begin with, there are no warnings to treat as errors.
>>
>> I think that better reflects the idea that according to Walter, the
>> concept of a compiler warning is inherently broken and thus rejected.
>> Your code either compiles or not, which goes against the idea of what
>> warnings are.
> 
> We're just splitting hairs here, but the nuance I got from "there are
> no warnings" is that there are no checks ever performed of the type
> most compilers call warnings.  That's not true.   It does perform
> those kinds of checks with the -w flag, it just causes the compilation
> to fail when such things are found.

Ah I see, that's not what I meant.
> 
> So all I'm sayin' is that if you're trying to actually be helpful,
> then a better explanation is "all warnings are treated as errors".  If
> just want to make a political point, maybe your way is better.
> 
> --bb

Perhaps you're right, I might be too indoctrinated.