On 08/12/2013 09:07 AM, Glenn Morris wrote:
Really? This position makes no sense to me.
Why wouldn't you want to be warned about something that could be a
bug in your document?
(FWIW, I can find just two instances of such complaints in the
bug-texinfo archive, both from the same person as it happens:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2001-12/msg00041.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2006-05/msg00000.html
In both cases, Werner is not opposed to warnings - he explicitly
says he doesn't want to use --no-warn because he wants useful warnings.
The problem is warnings that one can't shut up - he is asking for
how to rewrite to source to avoid warnings.
Some people/organizations have a policy (or at least preference) that
builds be warning-free. This is a good discipline. The gcc -Werror option
helps with this. It's a tool to avoid regressions: If a warning
is an error, it forces you to resolve it immediately. Using -Werror is only
practical if there us a way to either re-write the source to avoid a
warning,
or a way to shut up a warning in a specific context (after you've
evaluated it).
--
--Per Bothner
[email protected] http://per.bothner.com/
