Proposal: Add readMaybe (and possibly readEither) to Prelude, make Haddocks for read more cautionary

[Sven Panne]

2016-12-30 9:43 GMT+01:00 David Menendez <dave at zednenem.com>:

> Why -Wall and not -W? If something is almost always an issue, shouldn’t it
> be in -W?
>

My point basically is: The distinction between -Wall and -W is an illusion.


> The point I was trying to make is that we don’t want to prevent compiler
> developers from adding warnings (or library developers from deprecating
> things) merely to make life easier for people who want to be -Wall clean.
>

Who is "we"? :-) Adding a new sensible warning to the compiler is
completely OK, if it breaks some projects, these should be fixed.
Deprecating things is OK, too, at least if there is a sane migration path.
But of course in both cases, the potential benefits should outweigh the
induced costs.


> Having a syntax to disable a warning is not a bad idea, even though it
> brings to mind the “please” keyword from Intercal.
>

:-D The point about such syntax is: Tools almost always give some false
positives, so there must be some kind of escape hatch for the programmer to
shut them up locally. People who have tried e.g. include-what-you-use,
clang-tidy or cppcheck on larger projects probably know what I mean: You
can't wait months or even years until a tool is fixed, but you don't want
to use a big hammer to silence them, either.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20161230/3a900577/attachment.html>