Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, stable-2.0, updated. v2.0.6-97-ge8772a9

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Hi,

Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:

> Sorry for not noticing this earlier, but I should mention that although
> I use some of the warnings infrastructure for reporting the
> 'duplicate-case-datum' and 'bad-case-datum' warnings, I never check for
> those warning flags.  The warnings are reported unconditionally.

Oops, I had overlooked that.

> I had started to work on a patch set to make them conditional, but that
> work was halted due to an unresolved disagreement about how warnings
> should be specified.
>
>   http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2012-02/msg00080.html

As an aside, it’s really hard for me to deal with work that’s “halted”.
I’d rather resolve them quickly, than just let them be forgotten, and
eventually revive them.

> I felt, and continue to strongly feel, that we should not require the
> user to provide a complete list of warning types that they want.  If we
> do that, then users will be forced to hard-code that list into their
> build systems (and/or code that uses 'compile').  If they do this, then
> whenever we add a new warning type, no one will see the new warnings
> until they modify their build system.
>
> Can we revisit this issue?

Sure.  Can you reply to my last message in the thread?  :-)

Thanks,
Ludo’.