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

[BCS]

Hello Nick,

> "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.

If your getting lots of warnings? Or maybe your compile times are really 
long (I've seen template code run north of 5 min for a single file). Du'know.

>> 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.

I can't think of any reason to turn on warnings starting at any root other 
than the files listed on the command line and I can't think of any good reason 
to turn off warnings at any point that isn't a ownership or library boundary. 
I guess I'm saying I can't think of a case where your proposal gives me anything 
I'd want.
 
--
<IXOYE><