-wi on default?

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.408.1336451614.24740.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>
> I think that it makes sense to have flags for enabling certain types of
> warnings. The programmer can then choose to enable warnings for the things
> that that they want to warn about (be it on all builds or just on a build
> which is intended to check for the type of stuff that lint checks for). 
> What I
> do _not_ want to see is for such warnings to be part of -wi or -w.
>
> I'm _very_ much against having normal warnings which are things which 
> don't
> definitively need to be fixed, because otherwise you get into the 
> situation
> where people ignore them, and the quality of the software suffers, because 
> you
> get a ton of warnings that don't get fixed, some of which _need_ to get 
> fixed
> and others which just hide those warnings by helping to make the number of
> warnings too many to examine. Optional flags for additional warnings don't
> introduce quite the same problem (though obviously if you always insist on
> them for your builds, you risk the same problems as if they were part 
> of -wi).
>
> However, as I understand it, Walter is against having a bunch of different 
> flags
> for enabling or disabling different warnings, so it's unlikely that we're 
> going
> to get that with dmd, regardless of whether it would be an improvement or 
> not.
>

Ok, yea, I completely agree on all counts.