Bill Baxter wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Lutger <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Bill Baxter wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Lutger <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Justin Johansson wrote: >>>> >>>>> No, sorry I am not informed on D's policy about warnings >>>> >>>> Exactly. Ever wondered why that is? >>>> >>>> The policy is: there are no warnings. >>> >>> Probably more clear to say "all warnings are treated as errors." >>> >>> --bb >> >> Note there is no way to treat warnings as warnings, making those >> 'warnings' just errors that can be turned on or off. Since there are no >> warnings to begin with, there are no warnings to treat as errors. >> >> I think that better reflects the idea that according to Walter, the >> concept of a compiler warning is inherently broken and thus rejected. >> Your code either compiles or not, which goes against the idea of what >> warnings are. > > We're just splitting hairs here, but the nuance I got from "there are > no warnings" is that there are no checks ever performed of the type > most compilers call warnings. That's not true. It does perform > those kinds of checks with the -w flag, it just causes the compilation > to fail when such things are found.
Ah I see, that's not what I meant. > > So all I'm sayin' is that if you're trying to actually be helpful, > then a better explanation is "all warnings are treated as errors". If > just want to make a political point, maybe your way is better. > > --bb Perhaps you're right, I might be too indoctrinated.
