Subject: Re: bug#4837: with-fewer-warnings ?

From: Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:58:06 -0500

>> Actually, I think I agree (I hate with-no-warnings), but it should be
>> even more precise, and specify which obsolete warning to silence.

> Do you mean, specify precisely which obsolete variable/function(s) not
> to warn about? That's probably doable via
> byte-compile-not-obsolete-vars/funcs, I'll have a look.

> A syntax like this?

> (with-suppressed-warnings
>     '((obsolete read-file-name-predicate ...) cl-functions ...)
>   body)

Yes, something like that.  Also the `cl-functions' is too broad and
should not be allowed.

> Although the motivation for this was not _just_ obsolete warnings, and
> it might not be so simple to extend your request to eg specific free
> variables.

I didn't say it was easy.

BTW, maybe a good way to do it is to implement this in the function
that outputs the warnings: currently it just received some kind of
string, which is not very amenable to what we want, but if you change it
to take a more structured description of the warning, then it might be
doable (tho maybe it won't happen at the right place, I don't know).

        Stefan