On 2011-07-11 13:50, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Jonathan M Davis" <
jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.1539.1310416341.14074.digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com...
>
> > On 2011-07-11 13:09, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >> Not that I feel strongly about it, but just like "scheduled for
> >> deprication", actual warnings are things that *are* valid code, too. Ie,
> >> they're just messages, too. The whole point of a "warnings as errors"
> >> setting is that some people want that extra help to ensure their code is
> >> perfectly pristine. (Although, personally, I've never seen particularly
> >> strong reason for "warnings as errors" settings anyway.)
> >>
> >> To be clear, if we did have some "deprecated(scheduled)" feature and it
> >> was
> >> non-fatal even with -w, I wouldn't personally have a huge problem with
> >> it (I never use -w anyway, just -wi). I just don't think it's so
> >> clear-cut that "scheduled for deprication" doesn't essentially amount
> >> to a warning.
> >
> > Hmm. The main problem with making the scheduled for deprecation messages
> > being
> > treated as errors with -w is that if you build with -w (as a lot of
> > people do), it breaks your code. And the point of the message is to warn
> > you that your code is _going_ to break and to _avoid_ causing immediate
> > breakage.
>
> If someone doesn't want warning conditions to break their code, they should
> be using -wi, not -w.