[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue COMPILER-DIAGNOSTICS, v7
- To: "Kim A. Barrett" <IIM@ECLA.USC.EDU>
- Subject: Re: Issue COMPILER-DIAGNOSTICS, v7
- From: Dan L. Pierson <pierson@mist.encore.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jan 89 12:53:55 EST
- Cc: cl-cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 31 Dec 88 19:39:52 -0800. <12458957912.23.IIM@ECLA.USC.EDU>
> I agree. I lumped ALERT and NOTICE together to keep them from causing
> BREAKs.
This doesn't seem necessary, with the depreciation of
*break-on-warnings* in the current condition system, being
replaced by *break-on-signals*
That may actually make things worse, depending on whether you believe
that a MEMBER type specifier is a valid portable value for
*BREAK-ON-SIGNALS*. If it isn't, you need to be able to collect all
the things you'd like to turn off as subtypes of the same type.