Deprecating fromIntegral

Niklas Hamb├╝chen mail at
Wed Sep 27 22:13:37 UTC 2017

On 26/09/17 22:56, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
> The idea is that you get literally
> every warning that the compiler developers can think of and then have to
> selectively turn off individual warnings. This squares pretty well with
> the
> 'deprecation-before-we-have-replacements-because-you-can-provide-your-own'
> narrative, at least.

I feel like "every warning that the compiler developers can think of"
and the motivation we're going after here are pretty far apart.

Warning when one type doesn't fit into another part is not something
that should be in a "low risk warning category".

I was suggesting we might want to have a flag that is free from the
3-release-policy (a backwards-compatibility mechanism); I was not
suggesting to have more verbose warning categories.

In other words, the intent of that would be to be able to subscribe to
warnings that will be enabled in `-Wall` in ~3 years, already at the
current release.

More information about the Libraries mailing list