"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.408.1336451614.24740.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > > I think that it makes sense to have flags for enabling certain types of > warnings. The programmer can then choose to enable warnings for the things > that that they want to warn about (be it on all builds or just on a build > which is intended to check for the type of stuff that lint checks for). > What I > do _not_ want to see is for such warnings to be part of -wi or -w. > > I'm _very_ much against having normal warnings which are things which > don't > definitively need to be fixed, because otherwise you get into the > situation > where people ignore them, and the quality of the software suffers, because > you > get a ton of warnings that don't get fixed, some of which _need_ to get > fixed > and others which just hide those warnings by helping to make the number of > warnings too many to examine. Optional flags for additional warnings don't > introduce quite the same problem (though obviously if you always insist on > them for your builds, you risk the same problems as if they were part > of -wi). > > However, as I understand it, Walter is against having a bunch of different > flags > for enabling or disabling different warnings, so it's unlikely that we're > going > to get that with dmd, regardless of whether it would be an improvement or > not. >
Ok, yea, I completely agree on all counts.