mame / ruby-lang.org wrote:
> https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16289

Thanks for filing this bug.  It bit me too and I was just
digging through my mail archives to figure out what was going
on...

> In theory, the warnings are not harmful because they don't
> stop or interfere the execution.  But in practice, I'm afraid
> if they are annoying because they flush all console logs away.
> I think that the warning is not needed if the call is already
> warned.

Right, it can hide/obscure actual errors.  And it is harmful if
users are logging and run out of disk space.

> ## Proposal
> 
> How about limiting the count of warnings to at most once for
> each pair of caller and callee?
> 
> I've created [a pull
> request](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/2458).  It records
> all pairs of caller position and callee iseq when emitting a
> warning, and suppress the warning if the same pair of caller
> and callee is already warned.
> 
> What do you think?

Your proposal is much better than the current situation in
2.7.0dev.

However, the ideal situation is that Ruby NEVER breaks or
complains-by-default about code which worked in the past.

Again, users abandon Ruby because of having to change/update
previously working code due to incompatible changes and
deprecations with every release.  I am now more strongly
considering setting aside time to rewrite some of my old
projects in a more stable language.

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>