5 ms·
Alternatively just add usages at top of package that have no real effects. This is experimental code after all! Never had problems with this, but yes, it's a bi
by loopz 7y ago
Alternatively just add usages at top of package that have no real effects. This is experimental code after all! Never had problems with this, but yes, it's a bit different.
- kstenerud 7y agoBut then if you forget to take those bits out, you now have unused things in your checked in code, which is exactly what the compiler was trying to prevent! The build flags approach is more comprehensive and safer, because it simply won't compile when you build without the -warnunused flag (for example in your ci trigger off your git repo).
- bschwindHN 7y agoSo many silly workarounds being suggested here. You should be able to pass a flag to accomplish this, anything else is simply annoying and drives away new users.
- loopz 7y agoThat's a feature! You could have a flag, but we all know this is going to be abused. Seems devs have opted away from such, though it is understandably opinionated and require some thought.
- kstenerud 7y agoIn what way would it be abused? "To use this library, you must enable warnings in your build"? Yeah, that's gonna fly. If your code won't compile with default options, nobody will want to use it. This is just a solution in search of a problem.
- loopz 7y agoIsn't such types of shenanigans SOP in many communities? Not against options per se, but can see the arguments against implicitly hiding alternative behaviour. Many compilers fail to be simple, performant and provide the right incentives. Again, never had problems adding experimental code (// TODO: Remove), bootstrap-code, extra debug-info, etc. Ie. Why you should want to prefer refactoring.
- bschwindHN 7y agoIt's not a feature, it's an annoyance. Don't use the flag in CI and don't allow merges until CI passes. It's not hard.