Re: request for change
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEu?hor?a.com> Jan 08, 2008
- 626 views
Pete Lomax wrote: > I agree, and would even support a ridiculously extreme method of *forcing* > every > individual warning to be explicitly counteracted, eg: > }}} <eucode> > without warning "parameter self in myhandler is not used" > procedure myhandler(integer self, integer msg... > </eucode> {{{ > whereby the without warning directive pushes entries onto a stack that are > filtered > by and popped off by matching warning messages, and generate errors when [any] > eof is reached for any left unpopped. > > Somehow doubt many would want to go that far though I still kind of like the idea of: without warning "string" where any warning containing the string "string" would be suppressed. i.e. match(string, message) could be used. The usual nested file scope rules for with/without warning would apply for these strings. e.g. without warning "parameter self in myhandler is not used" or to kill a bunch of warnings ... without warning "not used" or without warning "short-circuit" etc. Regards, Rob Craig Rapid Deployment Software http://www.RapidEuphoria.com