bug#4837: with-fewer-warnings ?

[Stefan Monnier]

>> I think it isn't worth doing,
> (I'd already done it, locally, before posting.)
>> because it would only gain you very much if you put a lot of code
>> inside with-no-warnings; we avoid doing that.

> Perhaps because it is such a blunt instrument. This would make it a
> bit less blunt. I don't claim this is important, but it is easy to
> implement.

> In the _implementation_ of an obsolete feature, it's ok to use an
> obsolete variable and there is no need to be warned about it being
> obsolete. However, you should still be warned about the variable not
> being defined, in case you remove it altogether but forget to update
> the code that uses it.

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


        Stefan