[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: issue status, 12/12/88 (issue COMPILER-DIAGNOSTICS)

> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 88 17:52:29 EST
> From: Dan L. Pierson <pierson@mist.encore.com>
>         The NOTICE condition type hasn't happened yet.  I was going to change
>         references to the NOTICE condition to the STYLE-WARNING condition,
>         which is a subtype of warning (allowing user condition handlers to use
>         the MUFFLE-WARNING restart on it to suppress the messages).  Any 
>         objections?
> The NOTICE condition type is created by this proposal.  There is no
> need for any other action.  I object to its removal on the grounds
> that a separate issue to create it hasn't been passed in some other
> place (are you thinking of Cleanup?).

I believe that the original intent of the NOTICE condition type was to
make it something disjoint from SEVERE-CONDITION and WARNING, right?
As Pitman pointed out some time ago, introducing a new condition type
requires more than just saying it exists.  Making the condition type
used for these kinds of compiler diagnostics a subtype of WARNING has
the advantage of simplicity -- it can simply borrow all the same
mechanisms as WARNING conditions, including the WARN function and the
MUFFLE-WARNING restart to disable printing of messages.  Doing all of
this from scratch for a disjoint condition type would be more
complicated than I have the time to figure out right now.  If you feel
ambitious enough to tackle this, feel free.  I agree that there is no
inherent reason why we cannot define a new condition type on our own.