Re: Fixing compilation and byte-compilation warnings before 25.1

[daniel sutton]

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 <address@hidden> wrote:

daniel sutton <address@hidden> 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.