Re: Fixing compilation and byte-compilation warnings before 25.1

[daniel sutton <danielsutton01@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1307 bytes --]

Ah thank you. Someone responded and made a new thread and were super
helpful as well. It seems like this warning needs to go to new consumers
but not in the core. Would it be appropriate for the declare statement to
somehow tell the compiler that we are in the core and therefore to suppress
warnings of this type? One suggestion was to add the recursive call into a
(with-no-warnings ...) call, but this could get tedious and invasive.

Perhaps there could be a list of ignorable warnings that could be
suppressed when in the core?

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 4:58 AM, Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de
> wrote:

> daniel sutton <danielsutton01@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Can someone help me understand why we are getting a compiler warning
> > about seemingly valid usage of optional arguments?
>
> The cause is the defined `advertised-calling-convention' for
> `display-completion-list'.  Declaring an `advertised-calling-convention'
> is the standard way to tell people that the signature of a function will
> be changed in the future.  It has been discussed some while ago whether
> this way to provide this kind of information is appropriate.
>
> Anyway, as long as the old signature is supported, the recursive call
> will probably have to break the new calling convention.
>
>
> Michael.
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1841 bytes --]