Seems reasonable and useful to me. Is this a good use of the process here? https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals
> On Sep 7, 2016, at 10:39 AM, David Feuer <david.fe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Currently, the only way to suppress custom warnings and deprecations is with > -fno-warn-warnings-deprecations, which is a rather large hammer. I see two > ways we can improve this, and I propose that we should do both. > > 1. Per-binding suppression > > Add -fno-warn-binding, -fno-deprecate-binding, -fwarn-binding options, and > -fdeprecate-binding options. These would take the (optionally qualified) name > of a binding and control warnings tied to it. So if you invoked > -fno-warn-binding "sillyFunction", then GHC would not warn you about the > silliness of anything named sillyFunction. -fno-warn-binding > "Data.Silly.sillyFunction" would limit the suppression to the silly function > in Data.Silly. -fno-deprecate-binding would refrain from emitting deprecation > warnings for the binding in question. -fno-deprecate-binding would presumably > imply no-warn-binding, since someone who doesn't care that a function is > going to be removed probably also doesn't care what else is wrong with it. > > 2. Named warning classes > > I'd like to add an optional "warning class" to the WARNING pragma, preceding > the warning description. This would be a short string indicating what sort of > warning is involved. This would be totally free-form, but the documentation > would suggest a few conventional options such as "partial" and "slow". Then > whole warning classes could be controlled with -fno-warn-class and > -first-class. > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
