From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rixed@happyleptic.org>
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A8157EE80
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:14:29 +0100 (CET)
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  rixed@happyleptic.org) identity=pra;
  client-ip=213.251.171.101;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-sender="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  rixed@happyleptic.org) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=213.251.171.101;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-sender="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@eneide.happyleptic.org) identity=helo;
  client-ip=213.251.171.101;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-sender="postmaster@eneide.happyleptic.org";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAJkgTFHV+6tl/2dsb2JhbABDxX+BXxZ0giQBAQQBOkQLCyElDwUoT4dzCsF+jxkWgklhA5ZjkQSDCw
X-IPAS-Result: Av8EAJkgTFHV+6tl/2dsb2JhbABDxX+BXxZ0giQBAQQBOkQLCyElDwUoT4dzCsF+jxkWgklhA5ZjkQSDCw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,891,1355094000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="8794457"
Received: from eneide.happyleptic.org ([213.251.171.101])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 22 Mar 2013 10:14:28 +0100
Received: from extranet.securactive.net ([82.240.34.113] helo=ccellier.rd.securactive.lan)
	by eneide.happyleptic.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <rixed@happyleptic.org>)
	id 1UIy5i-0005oH-K5
	for caml-list@inria.fr; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:16:50 +0100
Received: from rixed by ccellier.rd.securactive.lan with local (Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <rixed@happyleptic.org>)
	id 1UIy3K-0007Vm-TM
	for caml-list@inria.fr; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:14:22 +0100
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:14:22 +0100
From: rixed@happyleptic.org
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Message-ID: <20130322091422.GA26809@securactive.lan>
References: <514C1E1B.9050907@riken.jp>
 <CAPFanBE2r5WdTkf0YsR6u6jGZMbvD8RgZyX6+w9gVRVLL5pWSA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPFanBE2r5WdTkf0YsR6u6jGZMbvD8RgZyX6+w9gVRVLL5pWSA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Warning 20: Unused function argument

> My own guess (pure speculation) as to why this difference is that
> enabling it by default would have raised too many warnings on existing
> code, in particular breaking code of people sadly using a "all enabled
> warnings are errors" discipline (don't!), while unused let-bound
> variables where much less frequent in existing code.

Users are explicitely warned against -warn-error in the manpage for this
very reason. A solution to this problem would be to disable -warn-error
for new flags? Or even better yet, to disable it entirely and deprecate
it, since in all compilers -warn-error is a pain for everyone.