Reconsidering -Wall and -Wcompat
eir at cis.upenn.edu
Mon Feb 15 03:47:56 UTC 2016
On Feb 14, 2016, at 1:51 PM, Sven Panne <svenpanne at gmail.com> wrote:
> IMHO, the distinction between "during development" and "outside of it" is purely hypothetical.
I find this comment quite interesting, as I see quite a large difference between these.* For example, I use -Werror during development, but not outside it. For me, "during development" is when the author can see the output from the compiler. "Outside of it" is when the author is not looking at the output.
When I'm developing, I want to see lots and lots of warnings.
When I'm building something I downloaded from Hackage, I generally don't care.
So I wonder if there's a way for the tooling to distinguish between development builds and non-dev builds.
I know cabal better than stack, so I'll use that as my example. When I say `cabal configure --enable-tests; cabal build`, it means I want more information about how well this package works. Perhaps with --enable-tests, -Wall -Wcompat -Werror should be enabled by default. If I just say `cabal install`, I probably don't care so much about how well the package is working and can leave off the extra diagnostics.
The approach of integrating this with tooling like cabal or stack also has the advantage that it is very easy to tailor custom treatment for specific compiler versions. This custom treatment could disable newly-written warnings individually if GHC introduces a new warning that, it is decided, should not be enabled by default on projects that wish to have legacy support.
Would this address some of the problems that people have had in this space?
* By "interesting" here, I certainly don't mean "stupid". I mean "interesting", because I, like many people, tend to think that others think like I do. This is clearly not the case here, so I have to broaden my viewpoint.
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users