How DMD's -w *Prevents* Me From Seeing My Warnings

[Nick Sabalausky]

"BCS" <none at anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff102dc8cc7a05ac37bc1a at news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Nick,
>
>> You may as well just write the output files anyway and
>> save people the bother of working around it.
>
> Vote ++;
>
> Or maybe have "-w+" for the old fail-fast way, "-w" for the new way and 
> "-w-" for the "show them and ignore them" way.
>

I'm not sure I can imagine even a perceived reason a person might want the 
old fail-fast way. So think that brings it down to "-w" and "-w-". And 
that's exactly what my old patch does, except it called it "-ww" instead of 
"-w-", but that's a trivial difference, and if "-w-"considered better than 
it's literally just a two-byte change (once for the actual param and once 
for the help/usage screen).

> I'd also not mind see an orthogonal way to suppress warnings in libraries; 
> maybe only do warnings in packages not reached via include paths give 
> via -I
>

I could live with or without that. If it were to be done, another idea is 
something like:

"-w+package_name" -> Turn on warnings for package "package_name" and all 
sub-packages
"-w-package_name" -> Turn off warnings for package "package_name" and all 
sub-packages
"-ww+package_name" -> Turn on (but ignore) warnings for package 
"package_name" and all sub-packages

That would give more control, but something closer to your way might be 
cleaner or more convenient.