RE: sea-level rise of byte-compilation warnings [was: Fixing...byte-compilation warnings...]

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

Hi Daniel,

I don't disagree with what you say, but your reply belongs
in your original topic ("Solving some specific warnings
(was: Fixing compilation and byte-compilation warnings
before 25.1)"), not in the new one I forked from it.

However, it was my bad to introduce this new topic by
asking a general question when replying to your statement
about this particular message.  To my mind it brought up a
general problem.  My response was not really to what you
were trying to say - sorry.  I should have just started a
new topic, without referring to what you said.

And this part of your reply does pertain to the topic I
created:

> I agree with you that drowning in a sea of worthless
> warnings is bad, and that's why I want to fix them.

And perhaps this part:

> This is a worthless warning precisely because, in a
> way, this recursive call outranks the warning.  It
> ensures non-compliant code still works until the
> optional argument is removed.  The reason that its
> important because its in the core is that this error
> is generated when compiling emacs.
>
> In this case, 3rd parties are given information about
> how to not generate warnings: this warning is to only
> call display-completions-list with a single argument.
> Once this is followed, the warnings cease.