[m-dev.] warnings/purity_warningsn and mmc -w

[Julien Fischer]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 at 23:59, Zoltan Somogyi <zoltan.somogyi at runbox.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 11:29:54 +0200 (CEST), "Zoltan Somogyi" <zoltan.somogyi at runbox.com> wrote:
> > But I just thought of a way to ensure that this bug gets fixed, and *stays* fixed.
> >
> > First, add a subtype of option that consists of just the boolean warning options,
> > i.e. all the bool options in the oc_warn_* categories. Add another subtype for
> > just the bool options in the oc_inform category.
> >
> > Next, modify the error_severity type by adding to the severity_warning function
> > symbol an argument of the first subtype above, and to the severity_informational
> > function symbol an argument of the second subtype. This would make all error_specs
> > of these severities implicitly conditional on the option named in the argument.
> >
> > I am sure that this would require adding new options, e.g. for controlling the
> > warnings now output for the purity_warnings test case, and we will probably
> > go back and forth over their names.
> >
> > Can anyone see a flaw in this plan? Does anyone have a better plan?
>
> Actually, I have started to implement this, and I have already converted
> more than a third of the warning and informational messages to this approach
> (judging by the line counts of .err files). So I am sure it will work.

Sorry, I was down the rabbit hole that is our concurrency support and forgot
to respond to this.  In any case, I have no objection to your plan.

Julien.