Bryan O'Sullivan bos at
Mon Oct 22 19:06:37 CEST 2012

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
<simonpj at>wrote:

> But if the will of the masses is to silently and forever make
> Rank2Types=RankNtypes (documented of course), that's ok with me.  It just
> seems odd.  I thought that's what deprecation was *for*.

An alternative would be to have a mechanism for saying "-Wall -Werror,
except for these cases". I think maybe -fwarn-warnings-deprecations is
intended to do that, though really what I want to be able to say is
"suppress *only* warnings about the deprecation of thing X" or perhaps
"continue to issue a warning about this, but don't make it an error even if
-Werror". Obviously having granularity that fine comes with a cost in
implementation complexity (and it's not exactly a fun feature to work on),
so I'm suggesting that this be done so much as exploring the solution
space. (This is the sort of granularity that many commercial compilers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the cabal-devel mailing list