On Monday, October 1, 2018 2:44:32 PM MDT Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 10/01/2018 03:32 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 12:36:49 PM MDT Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) > > via > > > > Digitalmars-d wrote: > >> Yes, that's exactly what warnings are for. If people need to treat them > >> differently than that (ex: C++), that's a failing of the language. > > > > As soon as warnings are part of the build process, > > Nobody said anything about making them part of the build process. We're > talking about them being included in the compiler, not about them being > in the build process. Please don't move the goalposts.
dmd -w and dmd -wi build your program. Printing warnings is part of the build process. > >> Plus, other warnings (like deprecations, for example) which have proven > >> extremely helpful would have been a major problem had they been > >> outright > >> errors. > > > > Technically, deprecations aren't warnings, and dmd treats them quite > > differently. They aren't affected by either -wi or -w, and from a > > semantic perspective, they're completely different. > > That is purely playing around with word semantics. Deprecations in DMD > are a non-fatal message about something that might need fixed sooner or > later. That is what a warning is. Implementation details do nothing to > change that. Deprecations are fundamentally different from compiler warnings. In the case of a deprecation, your code _will_ break if you don't change it once the deprecation period ends, whereas a compiler warning is just telling you about something that the compiler thinks might be wrong wiith your code. In some cases, it's right; in some cases, it's wrong. In the case of deprecations, it's always right, and you always have to change your code. You just don't have to change it immediately. - Jonathan M Davis
