On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 16:07:57 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> I suggest to remove the "-w" switch from the list of dmd/ldc2 switches, and later to remove that functionality too. It's better to keep only the informational warnings.
>
> I keep seeing people in D.learn that miss warnings because they don't active them, so I suggest to activate informational warnings on default.
>
> And then I suggest to add a switch to disable the warnings, for the rare situations where you don't want them.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

Wouldn't it be better to "fix" "-w" in a way that is not:
"warnings are errors" but:
"compilation halts on first emitted warning" ?

This would fix the entire problem of "w" vs "wi", no?

On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 23:28:54 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>> As for the whole -w/-wi thing, why can't people just
>> read the list of switches?
>
> I have seen tens of times that this doesn't happen, in D.learn, in #D on IRC and with friends, students, etc. Silent compilers that keep the muzzle shut on default are not good enough. John Colvin's answer is not so unusual.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

No Just Colvin's. I usually try to compile with warnings, but forget half of the time, because it is "yet another opt-in parameter". I *really* wish warnings were the default: D is "safe by default, dangerous explicitly": warnings (as errors) should also be the default.

On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 22:26:13 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> John Colvin:
>
>> I've been using D heavily for well over a year now and I've never used -w (facepalm)
>> That's good anecdotal evidence that it should be opt-out not opt-in.
>>
>> Brb... Recompiling all my code with -w to find out my stupid mistakes :p
>
> If you seem my first point, I am suggesting to remove "-w" from the switches and to use "-wi" (actually I am suggesting "-wi" to become the default compilation mode).
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

Yes, I understand. That's what I mean when I say opt-out not opt-in.

On Sunday, June 30, 2013 02:03:47 bearophile wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis:
> > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10147
> 
> I have aggregated a request of mine to your issue 10147. Are you OK with this? (What I am asking in addition to your request is for informational warnings to be active on default and to be disabled on request.)

I have no problem with that. The key thing here is that -w needs to be fixed in som manner, because it currently alters the behavior of programs.

However, I'm sure that we disagree on the best handling of warnings in that I want them gone _completely_, whereas you seem to want to always add more of them.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 6/30/13, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote:
> I want them gone _completely_

You still need them for language features that go through a deprecation stage.

Jonathan M Davis:

> However, I'm sure that we disagree on the best handling of warnings in that I
> want them gone _completely_, whereas you seem to want to always add more of them.

I'd like a list of all the warnings I have asked for. Recently I have asked for a warning, but in the enhancement request I have also said that later it's supposed to become a deprecation and then an error. I agree with you (and Walter) that most warnings should eventually become errors. So I think we agree more than you believe :-)

Bye,
bearophile

On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 20:26:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10147

This problem is because the compiler processes warnings too early. If the is expression issues only warnings, it probably should succeed, because those warnings don't escape the is expression (just like errors). Only if they make it to be reported, turn them into errors and stop compilation.