Hello Nick,
"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.
If your getting lots of warnings? Or maybe your compile times are really
long (I've seen template code run north of 5 min for a single file). Du'know.
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.
I can't think of any reason to turn on warnings starting at any root other
than the files listed on the command line and I can't think of any good reason
to turn off warnings at any point that isn't a ownership or library boundary.
I guess I'm saying I can't think of a case where your proposal gives me anything
I'd want.
--
<IXOYE><
