On Sat, 5 May 2001, Conrad Schneiker wrote:

> Marko Schulz wrote:
>
> # On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 08:51:32AM +0900, David Alan Black wrote:
> #
> # > I certainly agree that this should not be warned about under -w.
> #
> # I certainly do not agree with you. This should be warned about under -w.
>
> Well, I kind of agree with all of you. But I kind of also agree with
> myself too. :-) That's why I initially made the following suggestion
> that everyone seems to have overlooked:
>
> # Maybe a "last resort" "extra cautious" warning level is needed to deal
> # with things such as this, so that people can habitually run with -w
> # without being overwhelmed with false alarms about issues they know about
> # or have otherwise dealt with.

Hey, talk to Marko :-)  Actually I don't think anyone overlooked it
I left my agreement with the "extra" idea implicit, and Marko stated
his feeling that it is indeed -w-worthy.  At least no one said, "Hey,
I have a novel idea -- maybe a 'last resort' 'extra cautious' warning
level is needed....'" :-)

> Just so there is no misunderstanding, this would be *another* (for
> example, -ww or -w2 or -w9) option that gave you the current and
> *unmodified* -w warnings, *plus* things that are known to be *sometimes*
> troublesome for the new non-expert Ruby fans, people who missed their
> morning coffee break, the sleep-deprived, the rushed maintainers of other
> people's code, and so on.

I'm all for it.


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav