"BCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Hello Nick, > >> You may as well just write the output files anyway and >> save people the bother of working around it. > > Vote ++; > > Or maybe have "-w+" for the old fail-fast way, "-w" for the new way and > "-w-" for the "show them and ignore them" way. >
I'm not sure I can imagine even a perceived reason a person might want the old fail-fast way. So think that brings it down to "-w" and "-w-". And that's exactly what my old patch does, except it called it "-ww" instead of "-w-", but that's a trivial difference, and if "-w-"considered better than it's literally just a two-byte change (once for the actual param and once for the help/usage screen). > I'd also not mind see an orthogonal way to suppress warnings in libraries; > maybe only do warnings in packages not reached via include paths give > via -I > I could live with or without that. If it were to be done, another idea is something like: "-w+package_name" -> Turn on warnings for package "package_name" and all sub-packages "-w-package_name" -> Turn off warnings for package "package_name" and all sub-packages "-ww+package_name" -> Turn on (but ignore) warnings for package "package_name" and all sub-packages That would give more control, but something closer to your way might be cleaner or more convenient.
