[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, stable-2.0, updated. v2.0.6-97-ge8
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, stable-2.0, updated. v2.0.6-97-ge8772a9 |
Date: |
Fri, 30 Nov 2012 21:18:08 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.130005 (Ma Gnus v0.5) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hi,
Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> skribis:
> Sorry for not noticing this earlier, but I should mention that although
> I use some of the warnings infrastructure for reporting the
> 'duplicate-case-datum' and 'bad-case-datum' warnings, I never check for
> those warning flags. The warnings are reported unconditionally.
Oops, I had overlooked that.
> I had started to work on a patch set to make them conditional, but that
> work was halted due to an unresolved disagreement about how warnings
> should be specified.
>
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2012-02/msg00080.html
As an aside, it’s really hard for me to deal with work that’s “halted”.
I’d rather resolve them quickly, than just let them be forgotten, and
eventually revive them.
> I felt, and continue to strongly feel, that we should not require the
> user to provide a complete list of warning types that they want. If we
> do that, then users will be forced to hard-code that list into their
> build systems (and/or code that uses 'compile'). If they do this, then
> whenever we add a new warning type, no one will see the new warnings
> until they modify their build system.
>
> Can we revisit this issue?
Sure. Can you reply to my last message in the thread? :-)
Thanks,
Ludo’.