named warnings & individual warning control

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

You Wrote Mark Mitchell
> Personally, I'd oppose any patch to implement this feature (including my
> original one) if we don't have a policy statement about how the feature
> is going to be used.  I think that implementing this feature in a way
> that is useful to people is going to require a lot more discipline from
> those of us that are front end maintainers, in particular, and I think
> we need to know how we're going to do that.  Now, from a technical point
> of view, if you put all the messages in a catalog, and tagged them with
> their existing warning categories -- but didn't change the user
> interface at all -- that would just be a technical patch, and we could
> consider it on its technical merits  -- is it easier/harder to maintain,
> etc.

And even more so, it also may place an undue burden on the way
we maintain disgnostics.  People like Giovanni Bangert have been
improving the diagnostics based on PRs.   This is a feedback
process.  It is important that we have some freedom in the way
we word the diagnostics; I would certainly not buy something
that would hinder diagnostic improvements.

(For example, I want to kill the "first use this function"
silly message, without having to disturb users or being disturbed).

> --
> Mark Mitchell
> CodeSourcery, LLC
> (916) 791-8304
> mark@codesourcery.com
>
>