On Monday, August 20, 2012 20:29:05 David Nadlinger wrote: > On 19 Aug 2012, at 10:25, Iain Buclaw wrote: > > You can only be certain that a function is never invoked unless it is > > marked 'static' IMO. My opinion is that it should warn you anyway, as > > it is potentially buggy code, even if unused. > > Yes, sure, emitting a warning is fine, even more so if the code is > known to be live.
Because of -w, there is essentially zero difference between a warning and an error except whether everyone sees it or not. They need to be fixed in either case. So, if what Kenji did is okay, then it should be neither a warning nor an error. If it's not okay, then a warning may be the correct approach, but the code will need to be changed regardless. - Jonathan M Davis _______________________________________________ dmd-internals mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
