On 9/10/19 6:48 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 05:46:14PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> writes: >>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 06:14:11PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: >>>> On 9/9/19 11:14 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 9 Sep 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> "IgnoreWarn" reads as "ignore the warning". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we want it named as two things, can we just make it two things? >>>>>>> "Ignore WarnDeleted" or something. Which also says what it is warning >>>>>>> about. >>>>>> >>>>>> Or WarnRemoved. Both work for me, but ultimately it would be best if >>>>>> Joseph >>>>>> decides. >>>>> >>>>> I prefer WarnRemoved. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Works for me. I'm going to install the tested patch. >>> >>> I thought the decision is to replace Deprecated with Ignore WarnRemoved >>> where Ignore would handle the ignoring and WarnRemoved just add the warning >>> part on top of it. So, OPT_SPECIAL_ignore plus some flag for WarnRemoved. >> >> Is there any time you'd use WarnRemoved without Ignore though? > > No. > >> Seems better not to require two flags when one would do. > > Well, the idea was to make it clear what it does. That the current > Deprecated is about ignoring the option and on top of that warning > because the option has been removed. > It is more typing, but that is it, the *.awk scripts can diagnose easily > if WarnRemoved is used without Ignore.
I don't like it much to combine two flags. Martin > > Jakub >
