Re: Let's fix how warnings are specified

[Andy Wingo]

Hi!

Mark, are you still interested in implementing this?  It would be very
nice :)

On Thu 16 Feb 2012 22:22, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>>> Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> skribis:
>>>
>>>> Here's a preliminary proposal:
>>>>
>>>> * Add new pseudo-warning types 'all' and 'default'.
>>>
>>> Yes, but only at the UI level–i.e., in ‘guild compile’, along with
>>> ‘help’.
>>
>> The fundamental problem with this strategy is that it requires a
>> centralized master list of warning types, which makes it very awkward
>> for users to add their own new warning types that can be explicitly
>> disabled.
>
> It can be centralized and user-extensible, can’t it?  For instance,
> (system base message) could export ‘register-warning-type!’.

I agree with Ludo here -- for example in GCC, -Wall doesn't actually
enable all warnings, just more of them.  You need to be able to list the
set of enabled warning passes I think.  Dunno.

> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> Let's pave this cowpath and add a #:warnings option to compile.  It
>> could default to #f.  If it's not #f, then we require it to be a list,
>> and append `(#:warnings ,warnings) to the #:opts.
>
> Yes, sounds good!

This would also be nice :)

Regards,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/