Re: [Caml-list] Release 3.09.1
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 10:10 -0500, Eric Cooper wrote:
> This isn't a substitute for a real test suite, but what if the Debian
> OCaml policy were to say that all build rules should use "-warn-error A"
> (or "-warn-error As" for lablgtk apps). That way, at least new
> warnings from new compiler releases would force a FTBFS.
That is too strict and probably impossible to enforce.
First: My compiles use
-w yzex -warn-error FDPSU
at the moment. I cannot and do not want to error out code
that choses to name unused function parameters, for example:
one could even say that in the presence of type inference
this is a good thing. In other cases a named argument is
used or not used depending on debugging statements which
may or may not be commented out at any one time. I need
to suppress even the warnings, since they clutter up the
output and prevent seeing what I consider more serious.
Secondly, I have third party code in my package, including
FrontC/CIL and there are obvious reasons why the modifications
I make to such code should be minimised. In fact I have tried
to fix it so statements not returning unit are properly
ignore()-ed because I consider it a serious error not to:
I consider it a type error. But unused arguments are not
this kind of error -- in my opinion. And I can't easily
change FrontC/Cil to remove all those warnings (each one
makes a diff against the latest version harder to read).
And finally .. there is no way the maintainer can fix
my compile commands. They're not in a makefile, they're
buried deep inside a Python script, and they're constructed
by consulting configuration options.
Having said all that .. I do basically agree with Eric's idea:
it's a proposal which attempts to upgrade quality control
and get stricter about what's acceptable and what isn't.
--
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net
Reply to: