From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: Maarit Maliniemi <maaritm@mac.com>
Message-ID: <maaritm-1602020657550001@192.168.0.2>
References: <20020214153452.6CD4D199BB@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Inferno, Limbo unexpectancies
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:13:21 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 52299008-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

In article <20020214153452.6CD4D199BB@mail.cse.psu.edu>, 9fans@cse.psu.edu
wrote:


 
> >>1 shadowing
> 
> shad.b:12: warning: redeclaration of local n, previously declared as a
local on line shad.b:10
> 
> request warnings and you'll get them (-w option to limbo)
> 


Would it not be better with the opposite behaviour?
Ie, if somebody knows about limbo they can turn off warnings they do not need.
Whereas the not-so-knowledgable (eg they do not even know that there are
warnings available) get them since they presumably need them a lot more...


bengt