Hi, Am Dienstag, dem 29.11.2022 um 10:14 +0000 schrieb Simon Marlow:
I'd like to see the pragma be `{-# WARNING [partial] head #-}` without the `x-` prefix, because 1. I'm not in favour of compulsory (and therefore redundant) extra syntax 2. I don't think there would be much confusion about which flag to use, because the flag is literally included in the warning/error message from the compiler.
looks like we are generally in favor of this proposal, while this particular shed’s wall color causes discussion. Arnaud suggested to use the namespace’d name of the category in both the flags and the pragma (i.e. [x-partial], [deprecations], to match -Werror=x-partial, -Werror=deprecations), which resonated with Adam, Richard and me. Simon PS was, however, baffled by this and Simon M voices a preference to only allow custom categories, without the the prefix, in pragmas ([partial]) to reduce noise and redundancy. Happy to hear more voices and accept with whatever the majority of voices said they’d prefer (without formal votes, doesn’t seem to be worth it), assuming nobody thinks either way is a showstopper. Minor point: Note that it’s not compulsory: The proposal (as it stands) does allow {-# WARNING [deprecations] -#}, which corresponds to, say, -Werror=deprecations, _not_ -Werror=x-deprecations. If we’d do away with the explicit x- prefix in pragmas and add it implicitly, we should probably change Point 3 of the proposed change specification to not say that a pragma without category is treated like {-# WARNING [deprecations] #-}, but simply state that it’s then controlled by the (built-in, non x-’ed) “deprecations” category, even if the same effect cannot be achieved syntactically with an explicit category. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/