"Conrad Schneiker" <schneik / us.ibm.com> writes:

>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, 

Possibly a way to deal with the status quo.
But still it does seem that we are trying to solve a problem that really
should not be there in the first place.  But short of potentially breaking
pre-existing code by changing the behavior of |x,y,z|, until a new
alternative arrives this may be the patch/solution.

> *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.

Interesting caricature :-) but don't think it is fair.
This problem seems to trip even the Masters (which I am certainly not).  
In [ruby-talk:14616] Matz himself acknowledges having been tripped.  I'd say
there are two classes of people ... those who have been tripped and those
who will be tripped by this "feature" :-).

Good software design is challenging enough, should this not really fall into
the category of "one less thing to worry about" ? (You do seem to  have the
same view point so treat this as more of a rhetorical question :-)

Regards,

Raja