"Jonathan M Davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:mailman.1539.1310416341.14074.digitalmars-d-annou...@puremagic.com... > On 2011-07-11 13:09, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> >> Not that I feel strongly about it, but just like "scheduled for >> deprication", actual warnings are things that *are* valid code, too. Ie, >> they're just messages, too. The whole point of a "warnings as errors" >> setting is that some people want that extra help to ensure their code is >> perfectly pristine. (Although, personally, I've never seen particularly >> strong reason for "warnings as errors" settings anyway.) >> >> To be clear, if we did have some "deprecated(scheduled)" feature and it >> was >> non-fatal even with -w, I wouldn't personally have a huge problem with it >> (I never use -w anyway, just -wi). I just don't think it's so clear-cut >> that "scheduled for deprication" doesn't essentially amount to a warning. > > Hmm. The main problem with making the scheduled for deprecation messages > being > treated as errors with -w is that if you build with -w (as a lot of people > do), it breaks your code. And the point of the message is to warn you that > your code is _going_ to break and to _avoid_ causing immediate breakage. >
If someone doesn't want warning conditions to break their code, they should be using -wi, not -w.
