http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7041



--- Comment #3 from Leandro Lucarella <leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com> 
2012-02-06 09:51:22 PST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> More and more switches for is it a warning? is it an error? makes for a rat's
> nest of confusion. I don't find the gcc example of thousands (!) of switches 
> to
> be an example to emulate. Remember, each switch adds a burden of testing and
> documenting as well.

Did you see this part of the comment?

(In reply to comment #1)
> Also I wouldn't mind *at all* making deprecation warnings by default if you
> don't want to add more switches, or adding them to -wi or whatever, I just
> think the current situation with deprecation is just the worse possible.


(In reply to comment #2)
> The workflow is designed to ignore them until you're ready to fix them, then
> just fix the lot in one go. Each one should be trivial to do.

That means changing the compilation flags, that usually means changing the
build system, and the build system usually is in the VCS, and makes no sense to
either changing the build system all the time each time something is
depracated, or having to ignore changes in the build system, because some
change might have to be really committed.

And sometimes changes are not trivial at all.

Anyway, I can understand that you don't want to add more options (well, not
really, but I can accept it, is not that I have an option anyway :), but
believe me, there are other valid and good workflows, I don't think the
compiler should force the developers to use a particular workflow for this.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to