Simon Marlow wrote:
> I take your point that this isn't very consistent: there should be a
> way to turn off all warnings easily. What do other people think?
>
> The options are:
>
> * have all warnings off by default, a standard set of warnings
> being available by adding the -
Ralf Hinze writes:
> > I take your point that this isn't very consistent: there should be a
> > way to turn off all warnings easily. What do other people think?
> >
> > The options are:
> >
> >* have all warnings off by default, a standard set of warnings
> > being available by
> I take your point that this isn't very consistent: there should be a
> way to turn off all warnings easily. What do other people think?
>
> The options are:
>
> * have all warnings off by default, a standard set of warnings
> being available by adding the -W command line option
Chris Dornan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ghc has started getting quite chatty in 2.0x; some of the chatter is very
> useful. However, could I suggest that the warning messages provided by default
> be deployed sparingly. I would be inclined to provide warnings only if a
> warnings flag is pro
ghc has started getting quite chatty in 2.0x; some of the chatter is very
useful. However, could I suggest that the warning messages provided by default
be deployed sparingly. I would be inclined to provide warnings only if a
warnings flag is provided -- it is nice to have large builds proceed w
