Hi,

The following modules have missing module declarations:

std.c.math;
std.c.stddef;

The following module has an incorrect module declaration:

std.uni;

Could they please be added/fixed for the next release?

---------

Also, phobos won't build under -w. In fact, it reports an enourmous number of warnings. Shouldn't it compile without warnings?


Thanks,
--AJG.

"AJG" <AJG_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:de6emu$dro$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Could they please be added/fixed for the next release?

Sure, no problem.

> Also, phobos won't build under -w. In fact, it reports an enourmous number
of
> warnings. Shouldn't it compile without warnings?

Welcome to why I hate warnings <g>.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:37:40 -0700, Walter wrote:

> "AJG" <AJG_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:de6emu$dro$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Could they please be added/fixed for the next release?
> 
> Sure, no problem.
> 
>> Also, phobos won't build under -w. In fact, it reports an enourmous number
> of
>> warnings. Shouldn't it compile without warnings?
> 
> Welcome to why I hate warnings <g>.

Write correct code then ;-)

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
28/08/2005 8:47:06 AM

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 08:47:23 +1000, Derek Parnell <derek@psych.ward> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:37:40 -0700, Walter wrote:
>
>> "AJG" <AJG_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
>> news:de6emu$dro$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>> Could they please be added/fixed for the next release?
>>
>> Sure, no problem.
>>
>>> Also, phobos won't build under -w. In fact, it reports an enourmous number
>> of
>>> warnings. Shouldn't it compile without warnings?
>>
>> Welcome to why I hate warnings <g>.
>
> Write correct code then ;-)

Welcome to a philosophical debate. On one hand the "if the code does it's job it's _correct_" camp, on the other the "code must be 100% syntactically and conceptually perfect to be _correct_". I'm somewhere in between.

Regan

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 21:55:21 +1200, Regan Heath wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 08:47:23 +1000, Derek Parnell <derek@psych.ward> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:37:40 -0700, Walter wrote:
>>
>>> "AJG" <AJG_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:de6emu$dro$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>>> Could they please be added/fixed for the next release?
>>>
>>> Sure, no problem.
>>>
>>>> Also, phobos won't build under -w. In fact, it reports an enourmous number
>>> of
>>>> warnings. Shouldn't it compile without warnings?
>>>
>>> Welcome to why I hate warnings <g>.
>>
>> Write correct code then ;-)
> 
> Welcome to a philosophical debate. On one hand the "if the code does it's job it's _correct_" camp, on the other the "code must be 100% syntactically and conceptually perfect to be _correct_". I'm somewhere in between.

And to add yet another dimension, there's the maintainability line. My take is that if the compiler can detect that a warning is required, then the chances are that it's also a potentially expensive area to maintain. That is, it will tend to attract mistakes over time. Things that work ("does it's job correct(ly)" but are also fragile/delicate, might be worth the effort to add framework to strengthen it. And I think that warnings tend to highlight the fragile sections of ones code.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
28/08/2005 9:01:24 PM

"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:119nk8xf29c6x.1qzcdzsoe22lo$.dlg@40tude.net...
> Write correct code then ;-)

The code isn't wrong. The warnings reflect a different set ideas on how to write code.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:01:11 -0700, Walter wrote:

> "Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:119nk8xf29c6x.1qzcdzsoe22lo$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Write correct code then ;-)
> 
> The code isn't wrong. The warnings reflect a different set ideas on how to write code.

Of course it does - the right way and the wrong way ;-)

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
29/08/2005 6:20:58 AM