"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.406.1336442026.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > > And -w is _completely_ unique AFAIK.
No, -w is literally the same as "Treat warnings as errors", which many compilers have (esp. C/C++). DMD is just unique in *calling* it "Warnings" instead of "Treat warnings as errors". > That said, I increasingly agree with Walter's philosophy that something > should > either be an error or not and that warnings are flawed by nature. I always felt (and still do) that that's an overly puritanical view of reality. In an ideal world, yes, there should be no need for warnings and everything is either right or wrong. Problem is, reality sucks, and there are times when it's impratical or unrealistic to cram a bit of grey into that binary "right-or-wrong" mold. Hence, warnings. > So, nothing > which is a warning is really any different from an error except for the > fact > that it may be reasonable to leave it alone temporarily while editing or > debugging code. I consider that a very strong argument *in favor* of warnings having real value. Of course, this isn't to say that there aren't any warnings we should change into errors. Mandatory flow-control at the end of a "case:" block is a prime example, IMHO.
