How DMD's -w *Prevents* Me From Seeing My Warnings
a at a.a
Fri Feb 12 14:33:46 PST 2010
"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
"-w+package_name" -> Turn on warnings for package "package_name" and all
"-w-package_name" -> Turn off warnings for package "package_name" and all
"-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.
More information about the Digitalmars-d